|
I think banning PvP from Organized Play is great.
But what actually constitutes PvP?
One PC attacking another or two PCs attacking oneanother are obvious examples.
But others fall into grey areas:
Can a PC cast an area effect spell that harms another player? Whith consent? or without consent from the targeted player?
Can a player attack a creature summoned by another player? Can a PC attack another players Eidolon, Familiar or Animal Companion? Can sayd creature attack another PC? Can a PC attack a combat trained or non-combatant animal/henchman of another player?
Can a player grapple, trip, disarm, sunder another PC/PC's weapon?
Can a PC try to destroy items vital to another player's faction mission?
One actual example of PvP action is an Andoran faction character comming into possession of a vital item to a Chelliax mission. The Chellaxian PC (a summoner) does not want to allow other players to examine said item and has his Eidolon execute prisoners the Andoran character previously slew. Are the Chellaxian's actions legal according to the PvP rule? What action can the Andoran character (non-spellcaster) take to prevent the newly freed prisoners from being killed? Can he attack the Eidolon?
|
I would say that any action that affects another PC in a negative and unwanted way could be considered PvP. The direct attack is an easy one, but even spells that may affect them could be PvP. If the spirit of the game is suffering due to the actions of a few, then it is time to step in. If a character wants to spoil a faction mission for another PC, I would find a way to discourage it.
In one game I GM'ed, the Qadiran PC used channel negative energy to whack the bad guys. In the process, due to the range, he smoked out the slaves that the Andoran's wanted to save. None of the Andoran's spoke up and he didn't know they were slaves, so he continued hammering the bad guys and killed all the slaves too. That was unintentional, so it was allowed and the Andoran's missed out on a mission. If he would have been mad about something else and tried to kill the slaves as revenge, I would have stepped in. Same adventure, different group, the Andoran shouted out to the others to protect the slaves, no problems, they worked together. Same adventure, third group, Qadiran PC sells his Taldoran party member into slavery for a tapestry. The Andoran player and him exchanged heated words about this choice, but the Taldor PC was a rogue and knew he could escape so said he was ok with it.
I recommend that we all encourage the groups to work together, but roleplay any concerns over choices made and don't take it personally.
Direct player attempting to kill another player combat is not allowed. If folks aren't hiding their faction affiliation and are being subtly thwarted in their faction missions, that's not really PVP but is why I encourage factions to keep their affiliations secret.
The rest of your examples, while I agree that many of them are gray areas, I have to say that I'm not going make a ruling on them. I'd rather individual GMs and players do what works for them.
|
If folks aren't hiding their faction affiliation and are being subtly thwarted in their faction missions, that's not really PVP but is why I encourage factions to keep their affiliations secret.
Josh, you have said this once before recently, but as a GM and player I still have problems even with this. IMO opinion any thwarting of any faction mission for any reason should be not allowed. Faction points are too important toward character development and this happening in game can cause anger and resentment. At GenCon this almost happened in one of my games and I did not allow it, because of the reason I stated above and I did not know you had this position on this, I thought it was not allowed, but I will of course in the end follow your position.
|
I think banning PvP from Organized Play is great.
But what actually constitutes PvP?
One PC attacking another or two PCs attacking oneanother are obvious examples.
But others fall into grey areas:
Can a PC cast an area effect spell that harms another player? Whith consent? or without consent from the targeted player?
With consent, yes. Without no
Can a player attack a creature summoned by another player? Can a PC attack another players Eidolon, Familiar or Animal Companion? Can sayd creature attack another PC? Can a PC attack a combat trained or non-combatant animal/henchman of another player?
No on all accounts
Can a player grapple, trip, disarm, sunder another PC/PC's weapon??
Not with the intent of harming his fellow player.
Can a PC try to destroy items vital to another player's faction mission?
Player aren't supposed to know each others factions. Using player knowledge against anothers PC is a non-no.
One actual example of PvP action is an Andoran faction character comming into possession of a vital item to a Chelliax mission. The Chellaxian PC (a summoner) does not want to allow other players to examine said item and has his Eidolon execute prisoners the Andoran character previously slew. Are the Chellaxian's actions legal according to the PvP rule? What action can the Andoran character (non-spellcaster) take to prevent the newly freed prisoners from being killed? Can he attack the Eidolon?
As the DM, it's sort of importaint to make sure that the missions stay secret, as well as the factions. Objects that the Players have to find as part of the mission are not thier property so technically, they aren't doing PVP if they were doing so.
In some senarios there are faction missions that will come in conflict other factions. As that is per design, it's not really PvP. It's just possibly disappointing for one group.
As for what can one player do, he can bargin for the NPC's lives.
GOing forward, please remind the players that the main mission is the most important and the faction missions are gravy. They should not focus in thwarting each other.
Josh, you have said this once before recently, but as a GM and player I still have problems even with this. IMO opinion any thwarting of any faction mission for any reason should be not allowed. Faction points are too important toward character development and this happening in game can cause anger and resentment. At GenCon this almost happened in one of my games and I did not allow it, because of the reason I stated above and I did not know you had this position on this, I thought it was not allowed, but I will of course in the end follow your position.If folks aren't hiding their faction affiliation and are being subtly thwarted in their faction missions, that's not really PVP but is why I encourage factions to keep their affiliations secret.
But you are fine because you followed his position to begin with, that of letting individual GM's interpret how best it works for their game. You don't want players directly interfering with each other's missions (and neither do I), so you tell them so at the beginning of the session. Other GM's don't mind it happening, so they need to tell their players so as well. So long as Joshua and the majority are fine with the gray areas not having official rulings, then things will just vary from table to table.
|
|
Keeping characters factions secret becomes harder when they all show up at the table sporting their faction shirts. Nothing like a big ole' Andoran billboard to draw the Cheliax players attention. The factions of the PC's tend to become known quickly and after they have adventured a few times together, it is well known. The key, in my opinion, is to keep the faction missions a secret, then you can prevent a few of those items. Some players openly share their missions so they can enlist help to accomplish them. I don't mind either way as long as the players have a good time.
Yeah, you certainly run into a player knowledge vs character knowledge gray area when it comes to your faction, but keeping the faction missions themselves secret seems much easier to me. Sure, sometimes you'll accidentally lose a faction mission because someone else killed your contact, or destroyed your macguffin, or saw you do something no one was supposed to see you do, but keep in mind that the prestige curve does not expect you to get full prestige every time. Being thwarted every now and then is good for roleplay, I think. :-)
|
|
Yeah, you certainly run into a player knowledge vs character knowledge gray area when it comes to your faction, but keeping the faction missions themselves secret seems much easier to me. Sure, sometimes you'll accidentally lose a faction mission because someone else killed your contact, or destroyed your macguffin, or saw you do something no one was supposed to see you do, but keep in mind that the prestige curve does not expect you to get full prestige every time. Being thwarted every now and then is good for roleplay, I think. :-)
What troubles me is how easily grudges amongst players may start. And once your character has been on a few adventures with an Andoran faction character you will have figured him out. Being an Andorite you will also know he has an interest in freeing any slaves/prisoners you run into along the adventure. At this point thwarting that character at every turn is as easy as including any to your cause "expendable" prisoners in your area effect spells. (I for one would consider such blatant disregard for life an evil act and may feel compelled to disallow such a course of action, but I know other GMs would not)
|
Yeah, you certainly run into a player knowledge vs character knowledge gray area when it comes to your faction, but keeping the faction missions themselves secret seems much easier to me. Sure, sometimes you'll accidentally lose a faction mission because someone else killed your contact, or destroyed your macguffin, or saw you do something no one was supposed to see you do, but keep in mind that the prestige curve does not expect you to get full prestige every time. Being thwarted every now and then is good for roleplay, I think. :-)
I may need to rethink my character's physical description and the actual metal miniature I have for him now. Nothing says Andoran like Blue Painted Armor with gold accents and gold eagle embelleshments!
|
|
I may need to rethink my character's physical description and the actual metal miniature I have for him now. Nothing says Andoran like Blue Painted Armor with gold accents and gold eagle embelleshments!
My Andoran faction character wears an old coat from the Imperial Taldan Navy is unshaved and smells a bit of liquor.
Basically he appears to be a drunk and a deserter who gamles for a living.
|
On the topic of Faction Missions being thwarted by other players, I would offer this from the Paizo One Page Flyer (downloadable from the paizo site) advertising the PFRPG:
Forced to work together by the society and often at odds because of their factions, these Pathfinders—the Pathfinders of Pathfinder Society Organized Play—have a truly monumental task ahead of them.
I'm just saying ... I think that's kind of built into the game ... and as has been said, that's part of the fun of it - the roleplaying of having someone that might work against you.
Just my two coppers.
|
|
My GMing guidelines for PvP areas.
Players should get consent before inflicting AoE damage.
Animal Companions, summons, et al are extensions of the player. So should not be attacked. The same goes for a players gear.
The times were this gets hard are when compulsions and mind effecting things turn PCs against one another. At that point good sense comes into play.
Sundering another players weapon/ equipment is in many ways more offensive so make sure that the player (not character) is okay with it.
But most important is intent and player feelings. If you one player is attempting to hurt another or if a player is being hurt then it has to stop immediately. We're all here to have fun and one player doesn't get to have fun at the expense of others.
|
My GMing guidelines for PvP areas.
Players should get consent before inflicting AoE damage.
Animal Companions, summons, et al are extensions of the player. So should not be attacked. The same goes for a players gear.
The times were this gets hard are when compulsions and mind effecting things turn PCs against one another. At that point good sense comes into play.
Sundering another players weapon/ equipment is in many ways more offensive so make sure that the player (not character) is okay with it.
But most important is intent and player feelings. If you one player is attempting to hurt another or if a player is being hurt then it has to stop immediately. We're all here to have fun and one player doesn't get to have fun at the expense of others.
Well said Mr. Trent.
I think it can all boil down to that other rule about bullying.
I mean what is it?
It's kinda like that whole thing of art verses porn.
I know it when I see it.
|
|
This is honestly one of the rules that bugs me the most about the game. I believe in why it's there, and I agree that it promotes the spirit of fun for all, but it's also one of the most exploited I've seen.
Example: Party beats a critter to near-pulp, then heals it into a conscious state for questioning. The same if a critter surrenders, throwing down its weapons and is then questioned. After the party gets what answers they need, player 1 decides to kill the critter. Player 2 is a paladin, and disagrees, arguing that this is evil. Player 1 says so what, and kills the critter. Player 2 has officially had his thunder stolen.
This could end differently, but not without extending the play session into a bickering nonsense-fest. I think what it comes down to, is that there isn't a penalty for being a tool. My thought was to keep track of this on chronicle sheets, and let the evil add up, but it feels cheap to me, like violating the very spirit you're trying to preserve.
It would just be easier to let the paladin stomp a mudhole in player 1's behind and let him walk it dry. Sometimes life lessons have to come at the end of a fist.
|
Example: Party beats a critter to near-pulp, then heals it into a conscious state for questioning. The same if a critter surrenders, throwing down its weapons and is then questioned. After the party gets what answers they need, player 1 decides to kill the critter. Player 2 is a paladin, and disagrees, arguing that this is evil. Player 1 says so what, and kills the critter. Player 2 has officially had his thunder stolen.
Funny because this is an exact example that comes up during almost every scenario in which my character partakes. It becomes a question of if all PvP is combat oriented. In this case, player 1 may have plenty of points in diplomacy or intimidate and may force player 2 to submit in a non-combat way. This is where I believe in non-combat PvP and combat PvP. Right now, Pathfinder Society strips players of combat PvP but leaves it open to the DM to handle non-combat PvP. Stripping player 2, the paladin, of his combat PvP abilities makes it unbalanced in player 1's favor.
However, I don't believe that there can be a rule instituted that can stop PvP and be balanced. I think that you could have a rule that says a player's death may not be attributed to PvP. This would still allow both combat and non-combat PvP beign used to resolve inter-party conflicts.
Using this same example, player 2 is a paladin so he probably doesn't condone killing player 1 simply because he went ahead and murdered the critter. I believe it's perfectly understandable though to beat player 1 to near-pulp and heal him to a conscious state for repenting :)
All this being said, I am wary of PvP. It can be a very powerful role-playing tool that forces your character to take a stand on his or her beliefs. However, more often than not is only utilized by the jerk at the table. Like the idiot who steals from the party and not calling it an evil act yadda yadda. If excessive PvP becomes a problem, as it usually does at Cons because some players who attend are ones that get thrown out of home games, then the DM should have full rights to kick the person off the table. Heck we live in a democracy so if it's a problem have everyone, DM and all the players, decide whether or not the player needs to leave.
|
|
Well, all PvP is personal because we all have a personal attachment to our character. Unfortunately, I would assume that if player's vote someone off a table and they take it personally it is because they can't see things from the other player's perspective. Plus, that would of course be the last resort for the DM to resolve the conflict and you'd hope the player would realize that they are disrupting the fun of the game. If they take it personally, then they probably should and learn that the Pathfinder Society is a team based game. Just as in real life people don't want to work with others that better themselves at the cost of the team.
As for the argument involving faction missions: From my play experience (which is only about 15 scenarios), they are not conflicting to the point that combat PvP is a necessity or into a case where one mission can only be completed at the cost of another faction failing. If this is ever a case, then I think the developers would have made a grave mistake in not allowing PvP (hence why the faction missions are never like that).
|
|
The PvPs described above are probably fairly typical.
I think there are two aspects to it that should be kept in mind.
GMs and the necesity of cooperation.
1 - The GM: the Gm should take a role as mediator when these situations arise. A pasive GM can quickly have his game lose focus and a disintegrated (not like turned into dust) party.
Often a few reminders about the goal of the party can be enough, other times a GM might need to take one or more players aside and explain that their course of action is disruptive and will not be allowed.
However, sometimes it might be as easy as reminding the player in question that s/he is not playin an evil character and evil actions are not permitted in PFS OP. E.g. executing otherwise harmless oponents that have surendered and cooperaed with the party is evil... period.
2 - Necesity of Cooperation: In order to succeed in a PFS OP scenario players need to cooperate if one or more players do not assist the party the party and its mission will most likely fail.
A player, such as the paladin above, that is being pissed on by other PCs has two very powerful non-PvP options available.
A - Withholding assistance: the paladin will not aid or heal the other player. This can quickly have very dire consequences to the player that has disrespected the wishes of the paladin (or another caracter for that sake).
B - Abandomning the mission: Normaly paladins will not work/associate with evil characters and criminals. If other players do not respect the paladins code of conduct or another players personal code of honor. That player is in his/her full right to say "I regret to say that our association must end here. I wish you the best of luck, but I cannot continue this mission with you." The palyer(s) can then leave the table and the remaining players can take into consideration whether executing the prisoner was a smart or sensible course of action, and what it has accomplished.
I think a player that tells the party that he will not continue an adventure with them if they undertake a certain course of action has a good chance of finding a satisfying compromise.
Either of these options should of course only be used as a last resort. My point is that EVERY player is necesary to succeed at a mission and if other PCs do not respect your character AND if the GM is unable to mediate/intervene in a player conflict an offended player still has some very effective ways of making other players know they have crossed the line of what you or your character consider acceptable behaviour.
But I must stress that these are the absolute last stops I would pool if I felt another player was sabotaging my character.
|
|
As a DM I would have ruled that the player who wanted to comit the evil act simply couldn't do it. Evil is something that Players can't do.
And then I would go into this sort of discussion.
1) The encounter has already be resolved as being successful for the players.
2) Since the character attempting the kill knows that he has a Paladin in the party and his sort of restrictions are in place, prevoking the paladin to leave the party is a PvP action.
Trapping the NPC is fine.
I'm going to leave these decisions to each GM, but I would also handle it as Herald noted above.
|
|
We're all assuming that 'PvP' stands for 'player vs player', when it could just as easily stand for 'Pathfinder vs Pathfinder'.
So what, I hear you cry.
Well, since the Venture Captains are assumed to be a lot more experienced than their dogsbody gopher PC minions, and since the goals of their missions are so important, I don't see it as a great stretch to assume that they can, and do, routinely scry on the PC group.
It certainly helps to remember that, and play as if you might be being watched at any moment.
That way, minor bickering, or obviously accidental screw-ups will just cause your sponsor to roll his eyes, but repeated, blatant acts that endanger or sabotage the mission can result in a Sending or Whispering Wind to the PCs' current location, bearing the message "Agent X has demonstrated behaviour unbecoming of a Pathfinder, and is hereby stripped of all rank and priviledges!" (feel free to modify as desired).
Then, it's open season on the jerk, since it no longer counts as 'PvP'.
It's not 'Pathfinder vs Pathfinder', but 'Pathfinders vs some random @rsehole'.
We're all assuming that 'PvP' stands for 'player vs player', when it could just as easily stand for 'Pathfinder vs Pathfinder'.
So what, I hear you cry.
Well, since the Venture Captains are assumed to be a lot more experienced than their dogsbody gopher PC minions, and since the goals of their missions are so important, I don't see it as a great stretch to assume that they can, and do, routinely scry on the PC group.
It certainly helps to remember that, and play as if you might be being watched at any moment.
That way, minor bickering, or obviously accidental screw-ups will just cause your sponsor to roll his eyes, but repeated, blatant acts that endanger or sabotage the mission can result in a Sending or Whispering Wind to the PCs' current location, bearing the message "Agent X has demonstrated behaviour unbecoming of a Pathfinder, and is hereby stripped of all rank and priviledges!" (feel free to modify as desired).
Then, it's open season on the jerk, since it no longer counts as 'PvP'.
It's not 'Pathfinder vs Pathfinder', but 'Pathfinders vs some random @rsehole'.
The very first big header in Chapter 5 on page 17 of the Guide:
No Player versus Player Combat
Please read the Guide before commenting.
|
|
We're all assuming that 'PvP' stands for 'player vs player', when it could just as easily stand for 'Pathfinder vs Pathfinder'.
So what, I hear you cry.
Well, since the Venture Captains are assumed to be a lot more experienced than their dogsbody gopher PC minions, and since the goals of their missions are so important, I don't see it as a great stretch to assume that they can, and do, routinely scry on the PC group.
It certainly helps to remember that, and play as if you might be being watched at any moment.
That way, minor bickering, or obviously accidental screw-ups will just cause your sponsor to roll his eyes, but repeated, blatant acts that endanger or sabotage the mission can result in a Sending or Whispering Wind to the PCs' current location, bearing the message "Agent X has demonstrated behaviour unbecoming of a Pathfinder, and is hereby stripped of all rank and priviledges!" (feel free to modify as desired).
Then, it's open season on the jerk, since it no longer counts as 'PvP'.
It's not 'Pathfinder vs Pathfinder', but 'Pathfinders vs some random @rsehole'.
I see where you are going with this, but I don't think we want to go down this path. I can see complaints that GMs are turning whole tables against individuals and that certainly will cause some issues.
Just a simple warning should suffice.
|
|
Direct player attempting to kill another player combat is not allowed. If folks aren't hiding their faction affiliation and are being subtly thwarted in their faction missions, that's not really PVP but is why I encourage factions to keep their affiliations secret.
The rest of your examples, while I agree that many of them are gray areas, I have to say that I'm not going make a ruling on them. I'd rather individual GMs and players do what works for them.
I have a question about this as I am about to run a Society game soon and know this will come up.
Spoiler for PFS #5 Mists of Mwangi
in PFS#5 Mists of Mwangi, the PCs have a very good chance of contracting the Mist-Tainted Template. It describes the victims as degenerating into raving madmen that are little more than bloodthirsty animals. When I first played this scenario our barbarian fell victim to the Mists and he turned on the party. We had to knock him unconscious to get him to recover.
So, for Society play, should I, as GM downplay that part of the Mists, and not allow the PC to attack his own party? If so, it would seem like a great idea to fail the Save as you get some decent boosts (+1 CR) if you are a non-caster (spell casters are hosed).
If something like that were to happen to a PC in a regular game of mine, I would turn that character in an NPC until the problem was fixed. For that matter, anything that takes the conscious decision-making for a PC out of a player's hands turns that PC into an NPC until it is dealt with. I do not know if doing that is allowed in PFS play, but I would hope so.
|
|
The very first big header in Chapter 5 on page 17 of the Guide:
No Player versus Player Combat
Please read the Guide before commenting.
I was being facetious.
But it does give the GM a certain leverage, if he can remind the players that they may be under scrutiny at any time.
A lot of the temptation for PvP comes from the idea that 'out of sight is out of mind', and 'if there's no survivors, I'm in the clear'.
Just a way to cut that attitude off at the kneecaps.
|
The very first big header in Chapter 5 on page 17 of the Guide:
No Player versus Player Combat
Please read the Guide before commenting.
I was being facetious.
But it does give the GM a certain leverage, if he can remind the players that they may be under scrutiny at any time.
A lot of the temptation for PvP comes from the idea that 'out of sight is out of mind', and 'if there's no survivors, I'm in the clear'.
Just a way to cut that attitude off at the kneecaps.
Since several of my missions have in fact been to kill some random person in a mod, anyone trying to tell me not to do it would be the one guilty of PVP.
The mind spiders argument would not dissuade me from going after the faction mission.Kneecap
|
|
Even in a mod where the mission is to do someone in (which I haven't played yet), I'd hope you had more savoir-faire than to launch yourself at him, with a blood-curdling shriek, especially if you already know you have bleeding-hearts in the party.
You have to do it like in Kill Doctor Lucky, when everyone's looking the other way (and his little dog, too!).
|
|
Direct player attempting to kill another player combat is not allowed. If folks aren't hiding their faction affiliation and are being subtly thwarted in their faction missions, that's not really PVP but is why I encourage factions to keep their affiliations secret.
The rest of your examples, while I agree that many of them are gray areas, I have to say that I'm not going make a ruling on them. I'd rather individual GMs and players do what works for them.
I have a question about this as I am about to run a Society game soon and know this will come up.
Spoiler for PFS #5 Mists of Mwangi
** spoiler omitted **
I suggest you read the Mists of Mwangi thread in the GM Discussion list. I have run Mists twelve times now and no one has ever attacked another party member (aside from flinging their poo).
|
|
The very first big header in Chapter 5 on page 17 of the Guide:
No Player versus Player Combat
Please read the Guide before commenting.
I was being facetious.
But it does give the GM a certain leverage, if he can remind the players that they may be under scrutiny at any time.
A lot of the temptation for PvP comes from the idea that 'out of sight is out of mind', and 'if there's no survivors, I'm in the clear'.
Just a way to cut that attitude off at the kneecaps.
Since several of my missions have in fact been to kill some random person in a mod, anyone trying to tell me not to do it would be the one guilty of PVP.
The mind spiders argument would not dissuade me from going after the faction mission.
Kneecap
I doubt that any of the mods have faction mission about killing random people, though I have seen some specific people that have been targets in mods.
Should any player in this sort of pickle should take the GM aside and show him the faction mission that he has. The GM should be able to arange with the player a way to handle the situation without the Paladin (or other character) interfering.
If the problem persists, I'd remind the players that this is a game and the object of the game is to overcome the mod, not the other players.
|
|
I suggest you read the Mists of Mwangi thread in the GM Discussion list. I have run Mists twelve times now and no one has ever attacked another party member (aside from flinging their poo).
LOL
Does that constitute an attack, for the purposes of PvP?And, not to drag other threads into this, but would it break invisibility? Hmmm.........<strokes chin>.....the possibilities....
|
|
I doubt that any of the mods have faction mission about killing random people, though I have seen some specific people that have been targets in mods.Should any player in this sort of pickle should take the GM aside and show him the faction mission that he has. The GM should be able to arange with the player a way to handle the situation without the Paladin (or other character) interfering.
If the problem persists, I'd remind the players that this is a game and the object of the game is to overcome the mod, not the other players.
I only have to agree with this one. We had such an incident at our last game. One (less experienced) player tried in a rather clumsy way to fullfill a mission.
A bad dice roll and the paladin in the group felt obliged to step in to protect the victim. The way it was played it had to look to the paladin as a random cruelty to a helpless prisoner. There was clear agreement with the other players that the way it was played that the paladin wasn't given any other choice. Off course ooc everyone knew the paladin was thwarting a mission.The player tried again stubbornly the original solution until forced by the paladin and the other players to explain her random cruelty.
Kudos to the paladin player. Once she had explained herself the paladin found an alternative way for her to fullfill the mission while respecting the rights of the prisoner.
My advice to players who have a mission that might conflict with a paladin - take this into account when you plan how to solve your mission. If you have to kill someone - maybe it is good to give out hints to the paladin that you are after a certain person who deserves no mercy.
As a player you should anticipate a problem ahead if you wait for the paladin to overpower your victim to enable you the coup de grace on the helpless victim.
Thod
Spoiler for PFS #5 Mists of Mwangi
** spoiler omitted **
This is covered in the Guide:
In short, you can never use your character to kill another character—ever. Note that this does not apply to situations where your character is mind-controlled by an NPC and forced to attack a fellow Pathfinder.
Please run Mists as is.
|
|
The very first big header in Chapter 5 on page 17 of the Guide:
No Player versus Player Combat
Please read the Guide before commenting.
I was being facetious.
But it does give the GM a certain leverage, if he can remind the players that they may be under scrutiny at any time.
A lot of the temptation for PvP comes from the idea that 'out of sight is out of mind', and 'if there's no survivors, I'm in the clear'.
Just a way to cut that attitude off at the kneecaps.
Since several of my missions have in fact been to kill some random person in a mod, anyone trying to tell me not to do it would be the one guilty of PVP.
The mind spiders argument would not dissuade me from going after the faction mission.
KneecapI doubt that any of the mods have faction mission about killing random people, though I have seen some specific people that have been targets in mods.
Should any player in this sort of pickle should take the GM aside and show him the faction mission that he has. The GM should be able to arange with the player a way to handle the situation without the Paladin (or other character) interfering.
If the problem persists, I'd remind the players that this is a game and the object of the game is to overcome the mod, not the other players.
I resolve it by refusing to be at a table with a paladin as Kneecap. And yes he does hurl himself straight after his target, usually while trying to frighten the um bugbear out of them. Since we premuster everything that is pretty easy. The onus is really on a paladin to figure out a rationale to coexist since almost every pathfinder mission involves stealing treasure from their current owners. It is a morally gray campaign.
That said one of my other characters is a paladin. I expect to get less than half of my faction points with her when it is all said and done. I play a paladin as a challenge to myself to play such a difficult character. I don't play as a club to ruin everyone else's fun. Someone else violating a paladins code is not pvp in my book.Kneecap
|
The onus is really on a paladin to figure out a rationale to coexist since almost every pathfinder mission involves stealing treasure from their current owners. It is a morally gray campaign.
It's not really stealing, if the current holders of an item are a bunch of thieves, though, is it?
Donating works of cultural significance to a museum is one way of ennobling the spirit of man, to reach the pinnacle of their potential, as exemplified by the great Aroden, blessed be his name.
|
|
As far as the Non-Pvp, I personally tend to focus more on the module than on the acts going on along the way. I think of the Pathfinders as an organization like the FBI or something, but you're working with random other contractors on most missions. I think there would be a good amount of 'flexibility' both good and bad for most individuals who would join an organization as such.
For example, PC1 goes to kill a slave, PC2 is uber-good guy. I would expect discussion about the issue well before any kind of action would be taken. Some of this discussion can be very entertaining and good role-play.
Another way I think of it, is even if the situation went another way, even if PC2 doesn't stop PC1 in time, he'll feel bad about it, prefer to avoid PC1 in the future, but ultimately will just be thankful when the mission is over.
The flip-side of this, say PC2 is attempting to save/rescue/recover something ect in such a way that PC1 is involved in combat. I would that PC1 would (unless otherwise advised) possibly attempt to avoid combat, to try to escape, or in attempt to survive, assist PC1 for the mission, and be glad when its over.
I mean I know this is a fantastic fantasy world of black and white/good vs evil kind of stuff, but haven't we all had those people in the classroom/office/group of friends/sports team that we especially do not enjoy being around? Something we have to do that we don't like? I wouldn't quit my job because someone on my team was convicted of something, I wouldn't quit school if something bad happened in my classroom. Many people still watch Baseball with all the steroids, and I don't think anyone on Michael Vick's team quit when he was busted. It would be highly unpleasant, I would not like it, but I'd continue to do my job because thats how I make my living. Completing your mission is kind of the point to the Pathfinders, how its done is less important.
If someone joins the Pathfinders and feels so zealous as to do something like attack someone because they don't feel something was appropriate (killing a fellow Pathfinder because they're going after slaves, killing a fellow Pathfinder because they're in your way ect) then I have difficulty understanding why that person would even join the organization at all.
It is made clear that alignment is secondary to the mission as far as the Pathfinders go, it should be secondary for the player as well.
The last point to toss out there, is that these are not exactly open-ended modules here. Character missions aside, you only have so much time to get through the module! Sometimes its easier to bite the bullet and watch something you don't like for the sake of continuing on with the story! Any particular decision I feel is going to be disruptive, I would possibly throw out to the group as a whole to get a consensus, and even possibly open a dialog as to how to get the issue taken care of. Sometimes even just making a casual kind of comment will let you know what kind of disruption your action will have on the party. I mean if it just happens alignment-wise your group might support you. If it is clear that you're not going to be supported, or its going to be a huge disruption, its time to start thinking of a way to work around it.
Just thoughts. Attack away.
This is honestly one of the rules that bugs me the most about the game. I believe in why it's there, and I agree that it promotes the spirit of fun for all, but it's also one of the most exploited I've seen.
Example: Party beats a critter to near-pulp, then heals it into a conscious state for questioning. The same if a critter surrenders, throwing down its weapons and is then questioned. After the party gets what answers they need, player 1 decides to kill the critter. Player 2 is a paladin, and disagrees, arguing that this is evil. Player 1 says so what, and kills the critter. Player 2 has officially had his thunder stolen.
It's funny that I've had the exact opposite happen. I had a Paladin who insisted he had to kill an ogre slave (he was such a nice ogre, though!) once because he was inherently evil. To let him go would cause the Paladin to be responsible for any innocent deaths the ogre caused upon his release. The other members argued that the ogre hadn't done anything evil of his own accord and had committed no crimes.
It started to drag out the session, so eventually the DM just had him roll religion or sense motive to see if he'd be breaking/going against his paladin oath and the got the answer that he would not be. He did insist that the ogre be locked in a cell when we left, poor ogre :(
Seems to me that paladins are often not the victims, and are fully capable of causing enough problems on their own, haha.