|
So my Qadiran cleric of Sarenrae sometimes teams up with this sketchy Cheliaxian summoner. His eidolon is a ravenous beast and likes to eat the bodies of our fallen foes. My cleric has a problem with this, feeling that our foes have been judged accordingly and their bodies should not be disturbed on their journey to the after-life. This has caused some conflicts (mainly my cleric healing everyone in the party but the eidolon).
Anyway, I was curious that if my cleric got mad enough, and we actually were put in a scenario where we got to rest, would it be considered PVP to cast a magic circle against ? on the eidolon, and the cast dimensional anchor on it? I mean technically no damage is done, and no one was killed. It's just unfortunate that if we have to move on, the eidolon can't move...
/I'm inclined to think that this still goes against the spirit of no PVP.
//My VC agrees
///Still wanted to ask
////BLOOD FOR THE GOOD GOD
|
|
So what you are saying is you didn't like the answer mommy gave you so you are going to ask daddy. Dude, that's disrespectful of your Venture Captain. Do not expect to get an answer from Hyrum or Mark Moreland. These hair-splitting decisions are in the hands of your GM. If your GM doesn't know, he or she should ask their VC. Sounds like this has been done.
|
|
I'd personally count that as PvP... however you're most likely never going to be able to do that as the Eidolon disappears when the Summoner goes to sleep. And the Summoner can always just infinitely summon him back to his side (dismiss & resummon) with a minutes time.
Sadly per the rules of the Pathfinders your character signed up to two masters, his own God and the Decemvirate. The best course of action to stay in line with both would be to let the Eidolon do it's thing so long as it isn't harming someone else.
So what you are saying is you didn't like the answer mommy gave you so you are going to ask daddy.
Uh...didn't he say he agreed with the decision?
My two cents:
Even if it doesn't violate the PvP ban, it violates Rule -1 of D&D -- Don't be a dick to other players (without their permission).
|
So my Qadiran cleric of Sarenrae sometimes teams up with this sketchy Cheliaxian summoner. His eidolon is a ravenous beast and likes to eat the bodies of our fallen foes. My cleric has a problem with this, feeling that our foes have been judged accordingly and their bodies should not be disturbed on their journey to the after-life. This has caused some conflicts (mainly my cleric healing everyone in the party but the eidolon).
Anyway, I was curious that if my cleric got mad enough, and we actually were put in a scenario where we got to rest, would it be considered PVP to cast a magic circle against ? on the eidolon, and the cast dimensional anchor on it? I mean technically no damage is done, and no one was killed. It's just unfortunate that if we have to move on, the eidolon can't move...
/I'm inclined to think that this still goes against the spirit of no PVP.
//My VC agrees
///Still wanted to ask
////BLOOD FOR THE GOOD GOD
PVP IMHO
Having said that allowing your eidolon to eat the bodies of your fallen enemies could be construed as an evil act which in and of itself is a no no in PFS.
It gets down to that argument of what construes an evil character and how this is dealt with in PFS. A lot of Cheliaxian PFS characters skirt dangerously close to crossing that line and I would be intrigued to find out what would happen to someone who plays a blatently evil character in PFS. How would this be dealt with?
|
|
So what you are saying is you didn't like the answer mommy gave you so you are going to ask daddy.Uh...didn't he say he agreed with the decision?
My two cents:
Even if it doesn't violate the PvP ban, it violates Rule -1 of D&D -- Don't be a dick to other players (without their permission).
If he agreed with the decision then why shop around for a different take? The bottom line is that even if everyone agreed that it wasn't PVP, it wouldn't matter because none of us are the GM at the table. I certainly wouldn't welcome other members from the online community telling my players what interpretations I should or shouldn't have made my table. Shopping around on the boards for non-binding opinions when an answer was already given seems like he doesn't agree with it. Put yourself in the GM's shoes. You had a player ask you a question, you gave a clear answer, the player turns around and asks what other players would rule. Maybe Joseph wasn't thinking it through like that when he innocently posed the question. I apologize if Joseph was only curious on other opinions to confirm his notion of what constitutes PVP after having been told by his VC.
If he agreed with the decision then why shop around for a different take.
I can't speak for the OP, but sometimes I'm curious to hear other folks' opinions on a semi-controversial issue, even when I know my opinion is right. :-)
EDIT: It looks like I'm not the only one. :-)
|
|
So what you are saying is you didn't like the answer mommy gave you so you are going to ask daddy. Dude, that's disrespectful of your Venture Captain. Do not expect to get an answer from Hyrum or Mark Moreland. These hair-splitting decisions are in the hands of your GM. If your GM doesn't know, he or she should ask their VC. Sounds like this has been done.
Did you not read my first slashy? I said I'm inclined to say it goes against the spirit of PVP in the first place. But I like these thought games about what does and does not fit within the rules. Don't mistake general curiosity for wanting to actually skirt around the issue (my cleric is just fine with selectively channeling healing away from ANY party members he thinks are acting evil).
/Other things I think about when I'm bored: trying to figure out the cheapest, lowest level way to kill a Tarrasque that fits within the boundary of the rules.
//Or can you make a railgun with a line of thousands of peasants.
///Or for a 1st level barbarian, which martial weapon is the best in a cost-benefit analysis (looking at cost vs. average damage).
////Or a breakdown of costs with special material arrows (getting them made vs. weapon blanching them)
|
|
It gets down to that argument of what construes an evil character and how this is dealt with in PFS. A lot of Cheliaxian PFS characters skirt dangerously close to crossing that line and I would be intrigued to find out what would happen to someone who plays a blatently evil character in PFS. How would this be dealt with?
Is there a thread on this? I'm curious about this because there are some things that happen in PFS (and not always player actions, but Faction missions and the like...) that really are a toss-up on what side of the line they fall.
|
You are essentially doing something which will require the GM adjudicate a grievance between two players which is very frustrating for a GM, particularly in a organized play environment.
So I'm not sure about violating "no PvP", it certainly violates "Respect your GM".
Regardless, as far as I can tell the summoner can just walk over and scuff the magic circle on the ground and release his eidolon. " If the circle of powdered silver laid down in the process of spellcasting is broken, the effect immediately ends."
I do think it's reasonable to refuse healing and to allow the the eidolon to benefit from your spells if you think your character would feel strongly about it. It's just when you start acting directly against the other character's eidolon that you cross the line.
|
I'm not in favor of any actions that have a negative impact on the success of the mission. If healing the eidolon helps the cleric, in the long run, reach his/her goals, then over-looking an unimportant detail like an "animal" eating the remains of conquered opponents seems a non-issue to me. Of course if the remains are needed for a faction mission or because some promise was made to an NPC, that is a different deal. To deny any character their opportunity for some "fluff" that does not directly impact the game is to deny the player some creativity.
|
|
I'm not in favor of any actions that have a negative impact on the success of the mission. If healing the eidolon helps the cleric, in the long run, reach his/her goals, then over-looking an unimportant detail like an "animal" eating the remains of conquered opponents seems a non-issue to me. Of course if the remains are needed for a faction mission or because some promise was made to an NPC, that is a different deal. To deny any character their opportunity for some "fluff" that does not directly impact the game is to deny the player some creativity.
It's not ideal, that is true. I find more issue with the summoner acting like a tool than I do with the not wanting to heal.
|
|
And that is a totally different issue. I have encountered a few players myself that, regardless of what character they are playing, are either bad players or just jerks. In those cases, I tend to shy away from the teamwork concept, sometimes, even to my own detriment unfortunately.
I recall a particular player in a non-PFS game that created a half-orc slaver. My elven ranger, favored enemy orc, who's backstory included an extreme hatred of orcs because of his family being enslaved and both parents and a sibling having been killed by them. The player acted surprised and cursed me when I killed his PC upon introductions. Funny thing, he knew my PC's background before joining our group. What a tool.
|
|
pffft. Man up! As the party's cleric, you call the shots. If your other party members don't realize this, teach it to them.
"Aren't you going to channel to save us all?"
"I'm still miffed about that stupid Eidolon."
"But if we die, you'll die too!"
"Oh really?" *pulls out a scroll of Word of Recall* "See you all back at the base... maybe." *poof*
|
|
LOL Kyle! Between that and selective channeling, it might be easier to keep the checks on neutral (read: 'evil light') characters. I think I may invest in a scroll of Word of Recall now. Although, wouldn't leaving like that deny you the precious XPs and potential PAs? Hmm...
Anyway, I appreciate the comments on my mental musings. The actual situation with the summoner never came up in a game, it was actually something I thought of after a session when I was entering in my chronicle info into HL. But in said session, the eidolon almost screwed himself and the rest of the Cheliaxians out of PA because he almost ate the remains of someone they needed to bring back. I chuckled OOC, but then wondered if that could happen to me :(.
|
|
If you lose out on XP, you're actually ahead of the curve. You'll gain some PA, and some gold, but won't be closer to retirement. :-) Not really in the spirit of the game though.
Kyle has just found the newest way to game the system. Walking out of a scenario before the last encounter.
You walk a fine line, you have to teleport out before the GM awards you the experience but after you've collected all the PA. Gotta use this with a careful hand though, your GM might screw you by awarding you the experience but none of the gold from the final though...
Next time I'm GMing at a con I'm going to pay much closer attention when a player bows out because of unexpected time constraints.
|
|
If you lose out on XP, you're actually ahead of the curve. You'll gain some PA, and some gold, but won't be closer to retirement. :-) Not really in the spirit of the game though.Kyle has just found the newest way to game the system. Walking out of a scenario before the last encounter.
You walk a fine line, you have to teleport out before the GM awards you the experience but after you've collected all the PA. Gotta use this with a careful hand though, your GM might screw you by awarding you the experience but none of the gold from the final though...
Next time I'm GMing at a con I'm going to pay much closer attention when a player bows out because of unexpected time constraints.
Technically speaking you can be awarded XP after 3 successful encounters. So you need to win 2, find your PA and then head home. ;-)
|
So my Qadiran cleric of Sarenrae sometimes teams up with this sketchy Cheliaxian summoner. His eidolon is a ravenous beast and likes to eat the bodies of our fallen foes. My cleric has a problem with this, feeling that our foes have been judged accordingly and their bodies should not be disturbed on their journey to the after-life. This has caused some conflicts (mainly my cleric healing everyone in the party but the eidolon).
Anyway, I was curious that if my cleric got mad enough, and we actually were put in a scenario where we got to rest, would it be considered PVP to cast a magic circle against ? on the eidolon, and the cast dimensional anchor on it? I mean technically no damage is done, and no one was killed. It's just unfortunate that if we have to move on, the eidolon can't move...
/I'm inclined to think that this still goes against the spirit of no PVP.
//My VC agrees
///Still wanted to ask
////BLOOD FOR THE GOOD GOD
This is PVP as your targeting the player and causing a griefing situation. As a GM I would disallow it on the spot. Period.
|
|
If you lose out on XP, you're actually ahead of the curve. You'll gain some PA, and some gold, but won't be closer to retirement. :-) Not really in the spirit of the game though.
Getting a gold reward is dependant on actually getting away with the loot. If such action resulted in a TPK and the escaping character has not explicitly stated he is carrying his shae of the loot, a hard Gm might rule you only get PA, but not XP or gold.
|
|
If you lose out on XP, you're actually ahead of the curve. You'll gain some PA, and some gold, but won't be closer to retirement. :-) Not really in the spirit of the game though.Getting a gold reward is dependant on actually getting away with the loot. If such action resulted in a TPK and the escaping character has not explicitly stated he is carrying his shae of the loot, a hard Gm might rule you only get PA, but not XP or gold.
Hrmmm .. I can see Kyle being a hard DM like that .. but at the same time if you get the reputation for being a harda$$ DM are people really going to want to play at your table?
|
|
If you lose out on XP, you're actually ahead of the curve. You'll gain some PA, and some gold, but won't be closer to retirement. :-) Not really in the spirit of the game though.Getting a gold reward is dependant on actually getting away with the loot. If such action resulted in a TPK and the escaping character has not explicitly stated he is carrying his shae of the loot, a hard Gm might rule you only get PA, but not XP or gold.
Speaking from experience of Kyle doing this to my group... it was more caused of running out of time rather than a full blown TPK. I'm guessing Kyle's only occurrence of characters running out with full PA, 90% of the loot but no XP was our table... and it was exceptionally rare that it happened that way. If we had the time we would've wanted to finisht he mod anyways.
|
|
I can see Kyle being a hard DM like that .. but at the same time if you get the reputation for being a harda$$ DM are people really going to want to play at your table?You tell me. Want to play at my table?
Just back sloooowly away.... if you move slowly, he might not notice us.
Psych!!! I don't have to be faster than Kyle, just faster than whoever Kyle's dice is critting!
|
|
Depends on the Cleric's alignment and God's outlook on such behavior, really. In the above case, ticking off the Cleric seems like a dumb way to express creativity. Since when is being a tool considered creative, anyway?
Since when is the cleric's opinion the only correct one. I'm not trying to say that what the player of the summoner is doing is right (not enough information), but just because the cleric can hold his healing power over the summoner's head does not sound fair either. Cleric <> religious zealot. Perhaps the eidolon has been consuming remains for numerous adventures with other players without issue and now, this cleric wants to force his notion of morality upon the summoner. Or perhaps the cleric likes to force his tenets on players even when their actions are reasonable. What if the companion was an animal (wolf, raptor, etc) and hungry? Would it be a problem for it to eat the remains of some nameless evil human that was just eviscerated by the party's fighter. Sometimes being a "tool" can be applied in both directions. That's why I was saying sometimes creativity can breed some conflict, but it doesn't have to be game-breaking unless the players let it. However, in this situation, it does sound like the player was intentionally trying to be a tool. That changes the situation.
|
|
Joseph, I also feel that this is PVP.
However, it would also be PVP if the summoner is hosing other players for PA when a needed foe is eaten.
I'd be carfeul here. A player removing PA from someone by doing this is not PVP. PVP requires an attack on the character. Someone not getting their full PA for mod because of another player has not been attacked by him.
He may, however, be violating the 'don't be a jerk' clause, and asked to leave the table.
|
|
Joseph, I also feel that this is PVP.
However, it would also be PVP if the summoner is hosing other players for PA when a needed foe is eaten.
I'd be carfeul here. A player removing PA from someone by doing this is not PVP. PVP requires an attack on the character. Someone not getting their full PA for mod because of another player has not been attacked by him.
He may, however, be violating the 'don't be a jerk' clause, and asked to leave the table.
Sorry, I left out one word: deliberately. It has been discussed in sevearal threads in the past that deliberately causing another player to fail a faction mission is PVP.
But you're right, it's also being a jerk.|
|
Joseph, I also feel that this is PVP.
However, it would also be PVP if the summoner is hosing other players for PA when a needed foe is eaten.
I'd be carfeul here. A player removing PA from someone by doing this is not PVP. PVP requires an attack on the character. Someone not getting their full PA for mod because of another player has not been attacked by him.
He may, however, be violating the 'don't be a jerk' clause, and asked to leave the table.
Sorry, I left out one word: deliberately. It has been discussed in sevearal threads in the past that deliberately causing another player to fail a faction mission is PVP.
But you're right, it's also being a jerk.
Ah, thanks Neil, I wasn't aware of that bit. I tend to have a fairly narrow focus on things like PVP. This may actually help solve an issue with a problem plyer I get from time to time.
|
|
Strangely, I want to be at your table.See everyone? I'm a generous and benevolent GM! ;-)
Yeah, looking back it was about 45-50% of the loot. Still a respectable amount though.
Note that this was after 1 dead, and 2 almost taken prisoner. However my budding Eldritch Knight (with about... 25 HP at level 5), got through unscathed!
|
|
Hrmmm .. I can see Kyle being a hard DM like that .. but at the same time if you get the reputation for being a harda$$ DM are people really going to want to play at your table?If you lose out on XP, you're actually ahead of the curve. You'll gain some PA, and some gold, but won't be closer to retirement. :-) Not really in the spirit of the game though.Getting a gold reward is dependant on actually getting away with the loot. If such action resulted in a TPK and the escaping character has not explicitly stated he is carrying his shae of the loot, a hard Gm might rule you only get PA, but not XP or gold.
I like the game being challenging. When a GM softballs stuff I know it and it doesn't feel like much of an accomplishment.
I would much prefer I have a tough GM and walk away feeling like I earned the character rewards than just shuffling through the motions knowing there is little risk.
Of course as a GM you want to walk that fine line, make the players feel like it was close but not kill (m)any of them.
|
|
I like the game being challenging. When a GM softballs stuff I know it and it doesn't feel like much of an accomplishment.
I would much prefer I have a tough GM and walk away feeling like I earned the character rewards than just shuffling through the motions knowing there is little risk.
Of course as a GM you want to walk that fine line, make the players feel like it was close but not kill (m)any of them.
I am 100% with you on that.