Hi,
First, apologies if this is the wrong forum, and for the wall of text. I'd love some feedback from experienced role-players about a problem the group I'm in is experiencing (or maybe it's just me, I acknowledge it might all be my fault!).
I've been lurking in the forums now for a few weeks reading a lot of informed posts about different aspects of roleplaying and rules interpretation. I've done a search of the forums and couldn't find much specific detail to do with Party interactions (lots about GM/Player interactions but not Player/Player).
I try not to be a jerk, but when the wizard decided to use Shocking Grasp as the seer said goodbye I began arguing that there was no possible reason why anyone would do it. To my mind there's a major difference between tripping (0 damage) to dealing out 5d6 damage - which could easily kill a 5th level Wizard/Sorceror. As the PC wizard fled my cleric cast Doom on the wizard before the seer stopped him and left (the seer's SR absorbed the damage).
Would anyone like to volunteer how they'd role-play that differently or if it's even legal? These sort of things occur almost every session.
Here's a few examples of party politics/play that spring to mind that I would LOVE to hear people's comments about (oh, and I'm well aware a neutral or evil character MIGHT do the things below, but to what extent?):
- Stealing from the party (how about if you use party loot that another party member claimed?)
- Lying about other party members (how about TO party members, perhaps about a perception or knowledge check)
- Attacking/Damaging other party members
- Actions that bring the entire party into question (drunken brawling)
- Revealing information about the party to guards
Have I maybe missed a chapter or something in the rules that details this? Could someone point me to the right place - we've been playing Pathfinder for a few months now and we're getting better at it, but these player interactions are really slowing us down (We spent 4 hours in our last session doing nothing but talk in-character and OOC - sure it's great for character development but seriously, there's stuff to kill out there!!! *cough* I mean, we have heroic deeds to perform.)
(I play with good friends so this is purely an in-game problem we're having with resolving disputes like this. You can say "Role-play it out" but in some cases I'd leave the party (See above spoiler - bar GM fiat our party would be down one member).
We have a player who occasionally takes a very strong stance on something, to the point where he is willing to fight the other party members over it.
This is very, very frustrating. Especially as he is wrong in his conclusions and the following of his idea is usually the involvement of the local governance. Needless to say, that can cramp a party even when doing the good work.
My character is Lawful Good, the local law is Lawful Neutral and my character finds it too harsh and not tempered by circumstance and mercy.
His character is Chaotic Good and promote the idea that we turn over a minor thief to the city guards whom we know punish by maiming or death for the offence in question.
Anyway, the problem is usually not with the character but with the Player. It is the job of each Player to fit into the party. Otherwise there is no party.
|
Firstly I would suggest having an out of character talk with all the players including the GM and see if everyone is cool with interparty conflict, and if so, how far they are happy to go with it - verbal arguments? Grappling? Non-lethal damage combats? Lethal damage combats? To the death?
Also, even if people like interparty conflict, you might want to agree that if it is taking up too much time, say 15 minutes real time, that the players will have their characters call a grudging truce so that the game can progress, e.g.
CG Wizard: "Ok you holier than thou pain in the neck, I'll let the seer go unharmed, just don't expect me to let him off so lightly next time I see him"
LG Cleric: "I hope therefore that I may convince you of the virtue of tolerance before that time. Now, let us sally forth!"
Hi,
First, apologies if this is the wrong forum, and for the wall of text. I'd love some feedback from experienced role-players about a problem the group I'm in is experiencing (or maybe it's just me, I acknowledge it might all be my fault!).
I've been lurking in the forums now for a few weeks reading a lot of informed posts about different aspects of roleplaying and rules interpretation. I've done a search of the forums and couldn't find much specific detail to do with Party interactions (lots about GM/Player interactions but not Player/Player).
** spoiler omitted **
Here's a few examples of party politics/play that spring to mind that I would LOVE to hear people's comments about (oh, and I'm well aware a neutral or evil character MIGHT do the things below, but to what extent?):
- Stealing from the party (how about if you use party loot that another party member claimed?)
- Lying about other party members (how about TO party members, perhaps about a...
Good characters don't use lethal damage just because they don't like someone, not even CG ones. As for the tripper, who I realize was an NPC he should have ignored the PC unless he is CN or or some type of evil. As for your character you responded with a nonlethal spell to try to stop the situation so that seems ok.
|
|
I agree with Wraithstrike:
CG would not use harmfull spells in such a manner. Now if the seer was hostile to the party from the start, ok do some damage.
But if it's just NPC Blah coming to say "The King has asked you all to investigate blah." Well then I have to ask why did he attack him? Did he attack him for being a smarta$$ or out of simply deciding his character doesn't like the NPC?
His character is Chaotic Good and promote the idea that we turn over a minor thief to the city guards whom we know punish by maiming or death for the offence in question.Anyway, the problem is usually not with the character but with the Player. It is the job of each Player to fit into the party. Otherwise there is no party.
Actually the problem appears to be with your fellow players understanding of the alignments.
If he wants to turn over a petty criminal to the authorities to be tortured or killed, that is closer to LE which is diametrically opposite to chaotic good. A chaotic good character sees him/herself as outside or above the law and will often take matters into his own hands for the sake of what is good. (Honestly a chaotic good character would catch a cut purse, and cut off his finger/hand and then let him go.)I would ask your GM to pay closer attention to the actions of said character. At first he may just tell that player that he is acting outside of his alignment. Eventually if he refuses to change his actions, your GM should shift his alignment, at which point your friend cant complain if you mop the floor with him. (Just make sure it is on your terms, a prepared high level wizard is a pain)
EDIT:
As for the OP, I would recommend the same thing.
Have your GM adjudicate and bring these things to his/her attention. If nothing is done, then create a new character. If your party member is a friend out of game, there is no sense in ruining a friendship.
|
Without knowing the full story, I would suggest that the GM really start changing the Wiz to CE, possibly LE or NE as well. A Neutral possibly but not likely in my opinion.
As a side note, as the Cleric, you are sort of the center and voice for a party's actions. Both because they need what you can bring moreso than anyone else and because your character is bound by a code and morality that they are part of. You cant just let them do whatever, you must stand against dishonorable and evil acts as a champion of your causes and faith.
In this case, (do to PVP and inexperience with the situation, not bad RPing), I wouldnt be threaten to remove your divine powers, but by not acting according to your beliefs,
or against those that opposse them, you might lose your religions favor and need to atone in other cases.
I would really suggest first to speak to the DM first about your issue, then have them talk to the Wiz about it alone with what they decide.
If that doesnt help, then maybe you do as well, but without ganging up on them. If that doesnt, might be time to start a new game, as I dont think one person making a new character will solve anything and certainly isnt fair to them of the issue is style of RP.
I definitely agree that this wizard is lacking understanding of the "G" in CG. Good people don't act with lethal force just because someone showed them up or pissed them off. Maybe he would find some way to embarrass the NPC or undermine his favor with the king... think more like the difference between a rivalry and a vendetta.
There are two ways to solve the problem: in character or OOC, and both have their own set of ups and downs. Helping the wizard's player to better understand alignment may help the situation, and letting him know that if he continues to act in petty and at least borderline evil ways around your devoutly LG character that there will be IC ramifications. I mean, I'm sure the king wouldn't be happy to find out your wizard buddy was shocking grasping his seer...
Your group definitely needs to sit down and talk about how much interparty conflict they are comfy with. If that turns out to be something that everyone is okay with and y'all think can be handled maturely OOC, just deal with the wizard IC, however your cleric would choose to do so. Being LG, I would guess that would involve some sort of turning him over to the authorities, or if they are too harsh, running the wizard out of town and telling him you never want to see him again. Or, if the party as a whole is more akin to the wizard, respectfully leaving and saying your goodbyes to the rest of the group and bringing in a new character that is a little less Good.
The main point is, a few people will have to bend a little, maybe both IC and OOC, or one will have to break.
Lots of stuff detailing a group beset by PvP problems and possible immaturity.
First, to deal with the PvP. PF/D&D is designed to be a cooperative roleplaying game. There are a few players and even groups out there that thrive on PvP action, but most gamers find it annoying and it can ruin a game. My basic rule of thumb is that PvP is out of bounds unless everyone in the group is up for it. The group should talk it out and decide if they really want to play a game where they are constantly attacking each other or not. Unless everyone agrees to PvP, everyone should cut that crap.
Don't use "roleplaying" as an excuse for PvP violence. You can argue with another character without whacking him upside the head with a sword or casting a spell on him. Conversely, you are supposed to be acting as a group, toward a common goal. Characters doing stupid stuff like attacking NPCs with lethal force just because they don't like them should face real in game consequences.
Finally, I have to admit my first reaction is that there is a maturity issue in your group. I apologize if this comes off as harsh, but I have to call it the way I see it. I don't know how old y'all are, and it doesn't really matter. I know some pretty mature 12 year olds and some pretty immature 40 year olds. But, honestly: The DM using the Trip maneuver against someone who insulted an NPC? Casting a lethal spell on a friendly NPC sent by your own liege lord? Casting a spell on another party member because you disagree with what they tried to do? Stealing from the party? Sounds like a group that has maturity issues to me. This isn't good roleplaying. It's acting on impulse as if the rest of the campaign world doesn't exist and there are no consequences for character actions. Good roleplaying is understanding both your character's motivations and the world around him and acting accordingly. Again, my intention is not to be insulting, but to offer the advice you ask for.
I wish you good luck and good gaming.
First, to deal with the PvP. PF/D&D is designed to be a cooperative roleplaying game. There are a few players and even groups out there that thrive on PvP action, but most gamers find it annoying and it can ruin a game. My basic rule of thumb is that PvP is out of bounds unless everyone in the group is up for it.
A big thanks to everyone who's shared their thoughts and opinions, I think I've got more of an idea about PC interactions. One of our big problems is separating PC's from their players so fisticuffs OOC might not help that issue. I did like the suggestion of spending some time in an all-party chat OOC to diplomatically express some sentiments.
The alignments point that was raised was interesting, however I just don't know if it has any bearing on the situation - wizards aren't bound to any alignment, they can swing wildly without losing powers/abilities (the wizard has already gone from NG to CG). I also get the impression that if the GM dictated the character was CN then it would only make problems worse as the player would either leave or begin on my list of other issues mentioned. I'm a little uncomfortable with the comment that my cleric might lose his divine favor if he doesn't punish the wizard - but it seems a bit legitimate given the attack on the seer.
Defining a time limit on OOC and IC disagreements would definitely move us forward, or maybe changing the party would help, as I do see LG as a 'strict' alignment. Also I totally agreed with Wraithstrike and it was exactly my argument - lethal force for being annoyed with someone?
Brian, I think your post might nail the issue right on the head. I was hoping for a rule or something, but the bit "cooperative role-playing game" might do the trick. PVP isn't cooperative and so as it's causing the issue in our group we should probably ban it until we can manage it properly. Consequences for actions might also go a long way to managing this - I should perhaps speak with the GM to see how he feels about that though, I'm not sure if they want to hand out consequences and if they don't then as was pointed out "People are going to have to bend or break".
The alignments point that was raised was interesting, however I just don't know if it has any bearing on the situation - wizards aren't bound to any alignment, they can swing wildly without losing powers/abilities (the wizard has already gone from NG to CG).
Dan... I think you are still missing the point of alignment within a roleplaying game. The alignment written on the sheet is a reminder for the player every time he picks up his sheet. Every player should always attempt to play in accordance with that reminder in their head. Just because he isn't punished via the rules of the game doesn't mean his character should run around acting however the player wants.
As a side note the only alignment I am reluctant to allow for any PC is CN for that very reason.
Roleplaying should be a rewarding experience that changes every time you create a new character, but if that character always ends up being you real life "Id" then nothing every changes.
...just because they don't like them should face REAL in game consequences
Brian I laughed out loud at that, but i know what you meant
=)
|
He has a point...if your friend's Wizard is Chaotic Good, it means he does not believe in ordered society (every man for himself), is probably selfish and self absorbed, finds the rules and law abhorrent and challenges and breaks them whenever he can, does not believe that the law or the rules apply to him etc...BUT also, he is a good person, which means he will not steal from the poor, and will probably give money to people who really need it, will notice suffering and try to stop it, might even sacrifice himself for something he deems worthy of his attention and life. Even though he breaks the rules, he will try to the best of his ability not to hurt anyone that is innocent (in his books of course).
Behavior of the wizard in question seems mostly CN to CE to me...more on the neutral side, but anyway, seems to behave like an a-hole. That is not CG behavior, and most probably, that player knows it too. Talk to your GM, about it, and more importantly, let your character act like he should, because if you don't, you won't be having fun, and quite frankly, imo, that dude brought it upon himself...shocking grasping the king's seer for the sake of the gods. If i were the GM i would arrest him and at the very least put him in jail for 20-30 years for assaulting a government official.
|
Reminds me of my time in the army. Our group was going to go up against another group in a training drill. We had MILES gear, which is basically like laser tag. There was a trick where you could tap the MILES gear on your rifle, aim it at the MILES gear on someone else and their MILES gear would go off (indicating that they're dead). There was this one guy in our group who kept killing people on our side. And somebody said "You're not helping our cause here." And he replied "I know. That's what makes it so funny." I admit I was laughing too.
I think your party dynamics are similarly amusing. The more internal conflict, the funnier, but that's just me. One guy left our group because his PC was killed by another PC (no it wasn't my PC as I play hippies). I agree with DigitalMage that your group/DM should establish the SOP up front re: intra-party violence.
He has a point...if your friend's Wizard is Chaotic Good, it means he does not believe in ordered society (every man for himself), is probably selfish and self absorbed, finds the rules and law abhorrent and challenges and breaks them whenever he can, does not believe that the law or the rules apply to him etc...
Really? That's your definition of CG? That sounds like a perfect textbook example of CE to me. Sure, a CG dislikes rules and laws, but selfish and Self-absorbed? Every man for himself? The former is evil, the latter is N if passively observed, E if actively pursued.
|
|
Really? That's your definition of CG? That sounds like a perfect textbook example of CE to me. Sure, a CG dislikes rules and laws, but selfish and Self-absorbed? Every man for himself? The former is evil, the latter is N if passively observed, E if actively pursued.
Is this a case of tldr, or did you not read the second part of my post, or did you take it out of context? Chaotic people are selfish, self-absorbed and do not think rules apply to them. But read the part about good...
Here, one more time:BUT also, he is a good person, which means he will not steal from the poor, and will probably give money to people who really need it, will notice suffering and try to stop it, might even sacrifice himself for something he deems worthy of his attention and life. Even though he breaks the rules, he will try to the best of his ability not to hurt anyone that is innocent (in his books of course).
As you probably notice, there is a big BUT, and it isn't a body part :D
Is this a case of tldr, or did you not read the second part of my post, or did you take it out of context?
Actually, it's a case of your example being logically inconsistent. He's selfish, self-absorbed, believes in every man for himself, BUT he's a good person. Yeah. Gotcha.
Chaotic people are selfish, self-absorbed and do not think rules apply to them.
Wrong. Chaotic EVIL people are selfish, self-absorbed and do not think rules apply to them. Chaotic people have a problem with laws, that much you got right. Where you're getting it wrong is in equating that with being selfish and self-absorbed. Ghandi: Chaotic? Sure -- or at the most Neutral. Selfish? Self-absorbed? Not so much. CG characters still do good, they're still about looking out for others and being selfless and even self-sacrificial and beingth eir brothers' keepers, they just don't see laws as the best way to go about that -- in fant they view law as counterproductive to being Good. CG isn't a license to do whatever you want, in fact in some ways CG characters have to be more careful about how their actions affect others, for fear of slippingtowards CN or CE.
But read the part about good...
Here, one more time:BUT also, he is a good person, which means he will not steal from the poor, and will probably give money to people who really need it, will notice suffering and try to stop it, might even sacrifice himself for something he deems worthy of his attention and life.
So, using your two parts of the description:
A selfish person (your description) will "probably give money to people who really need it.";A self-absorbed person (your words) will "sacrifice himself";
A person who believes in every man for himself (your words), "will notice suffering and try to stop it";
Someone who "challenges and breaks [laws and rules] whenever he can", nonetheless "will not steal from the poor" (why not? "Don't steal" is a law and a rule, he's into breaking them whenever you can).
Do you really not see the problem with that?
Yes, I noticed the big "BUT". Personal jabs notwithstanding, I actually did read your whole post. The problem with using the "BUT" clause as support for your description is that the two descriptions are diametrically opposed to one another. Saying someone is selfish but willing to sacrifice himself is like saying he's Copernican, BUT he believes that the Earth is the center of the Solar System.
|
|
I understand...maybe if i explain a bit further...
When i think of a CG character, i think of Mat Cauthon from Wheel of Time. He keeps this outlook of an uncaring womanizer, but is a good guy at heart.
When i say selfish, i mean that he looks to himself first, but if he sees someone in need, he will not hesitate to help because he cannot stand to see suffering. But will try to make something out of it, as he doesn't think it is his duty to help people (since he isnt LG).
When i say self-absorbed i mean thins big of himself, believes himself to be very important and probably is very vain. Chaotic peoples are generally strong personalities. But when i say self-absorbed, i do not meant that he will not notice people who suffer and be compelled to act agains it and help them. But afterwards, he will make it known that he helped allay their suffering. Because he's vain.
Every man for himself means that he believes you get what's coming to you, and that you're the crafter of your own fortune. But if he sees somebody who is powerless to do it, he will help them to become capable of achieving their fate.
He challenges the laws because he believes they have been put there by men who benefit from them far more than the regular joe. However, he will not steal a poor man's last silver as that would seem evil and cruel to them, they will steal from the rich without a problem because the rich will still have money after the theft, they wold never rob someone blind and leave them pennyless.
Even though he is vain, selfish and law un-abiding, doesn't mean he doesn't have a good heart.
As to the BUT thing, i apologize if i offended you. That was not my intention. Sorry :(
I understand...
[a bunch of well-thought-out stuff]
As to the BUT thing, i apologize if i offended you. That was not my intention. Sorry :(
Thanks for the gracious reply. I accept your apology, and offer my own for being so touchy.
I haven't read Wheel of Time, so I can't comment on that particular character, but I see where you're coming from -- yeah, the guy you describe could easily pass for CG in my eyes. On the other hand, I would probably also allow for that character description for someone who was CN/N with good leanings, or even NG. The reason is this: A lot of what you describe about him EITHER: a) has more to do with where he fits on the Good vs. Evil spectrum; or b) is more about personality traits that are aside from his alignment. Allow me to parse your post to explain:
maybe if i explain a bit further...
When i think of a CG character, i think of Mat Cauthon from Wheel of Time. He keeps this outlook of an uncaring womanizer, but is a good guy at heart.
How he presents himself and how he really is seem different, so the veneer isn't a good judge of the character's alignment.
When i say selfish, i mean that he looks to himself first, but if he sees someone in need, he will not hesitate to help because he cannot stand to see suffering. But will try to make something out of it, as he doesn't think it is his duty to help people (since he isnt LG).
OK, see, what you just described to me doesn't come across as selfish per se. In my mind, selfish goes beyond looking out for ones self, it means pursuing ones self interests without regard for how it affects others. Self-preservation is not necessarily selfishness -- there's a broad spectrum between the extremes of selfish and selfless.
When i say self-absorbed i mean thins big of himself, believes himself to be very important and probably is very vain. Chaotic peoples are generally strong personalities. But when i say self-absorbed, i do not meant that he will not notice people who suffer and be compelled to act agains it and help them. But afterwards, he will make it known that he helped allay their suffering. Because he's vain.
Yeah, again, I think "vain" is a much better term for what you just described than self-absorbed. Which is a personality trait, not an alignment one. Plenty of characters of alignments other than chaotic can be vain and have strong personalities. Paladins, Cavaliers, Bards, and mages of all stripes come to mind.
Every man for himself means that he believes you get what's coming to you, and that you're the crafter of your own fortune.
That's not every man for himself, that's personal responsibility, or Karma. That could easily ne a Neutral or Lawful trait. Every man for himself means survival of the fittest, with no obligation, moral OR ethical, to help anyone else.
But if he sees somebody who is powerless to do it, he will help them to become capable of achieving their fate.
He challenges the laws because he believes they have been put there by men who benefit from them far more than the regular joe. However, he will not steal a poor man's last silver as that would seem evil and cruel to them, they will steal from the rich without a problem because the rich will still have money after the theft, they wold never rob someone blind and leave them pennyless.
Even though he is vain, selfish and law un-abiding, doesn't mean he doesn't have a good heart.
Yup, that's CG. But that's not the same as thinking that he personally is above the law -- that's thinking the law is bad in general. And selfish? Well, without reading the book, I don't know. But your description sounds more self-interested than truly selfish.
|
|
It's the internet. Easy to misinterpret stuff. Too impersonal unfortunately.
OK, see, what you just described to me doesn't come across as selfish per se. In my mind, selfish goes beyond looking out for ones self, it means pursuing ones self interests without regard for how it affects others. Self-preservation is not necessarily selfishness -- there's a broad spectrum between the extremes of selfish and selfless.
I agree, but this selfishness means (to me) that the character would first look to make himself pampered and good, and to buy whatever he wants and etc, and only if he witnesses some true suffering, will he actually (grudgingly) give charity or help those in need. Why? Because he is good, but doesn't feel honor bound to help everyone, like a LG character does. He cannot stand the sight of people suffering, and would feel very guilty about not helping them, but, still he doesn't think it is his responsibility.
Yeah, again, I think "vain" is a much better term for what you just described than self-absorbed. Which is a personality trait, not an alignment one. Plenty of characters of alignments other than chaotic can be vain and have strong personalities. Paladins, Cavaliers, Bards, and mages of all stripes come to mind.
You're right, vain is not a strong enough term. And, self-absorbed is too evil for a good character.
That's not every man for himself, that's personal responsibility, or Karma. That could easily ne a Neutral or Lawful trait. Every man for himself means survival of the fittest, with no obligation, moral OR ethical, to help anyone else.
A poor choice of words from me. Every man for himself, but tempered by the fact that he is a good person and will still actualy try to help somebody that cannot help himself.
E.G. The party has freed some prisoners and is escaping from a dungeon fortress that is inside the mouth of a live volcano. Earth is shaking, lava is chasing them blah blah...anyway, the CG character would rather help the prisoners as he sees them as weaker, and unable to help themselves, than one of his party, as he knows they are capable of taking care of themselves. That kind of every man for himself. I hope i explained it better this time.Well, i'm out of arguments... :D
I understand...maybe if i explain a bit further...
When i think of a CG character, i think of Mat Cauthon from Wheel of Time. He keeps this outlook of an uncaring womanizer, but is a good guy at heart.
There's certainly a good argument for seeing him as CG (although he's also the general of a highly disciplined army, mostly his doing), but he's a very complex character and a long way from being the only model. And it's arguable to what extent he is selfish, and to what extent he's lying to himself and others. I don't think he's a good starting point for a CG archetype though.
I suppose, for me, the archetype CG is probably Robin Hood (perhaps cause I'm British:) ) - someone who sees people oppressed by bad laws, so ignores them and helps where he can. Somebody rescuing/stealing slaves and smuggling them to freedom is a good candidate as well. (A LG person might work on changing the laws, a NG might try to do both.)