How tolerant are players supposed to be of each other's characters


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
The Exchange 4/5

Just get a lot of PA and buy your necromancer a really big bag of holding. Store your undead in there and pull them out like Pokemon. That, or see if your GM will allow you to spend 200 gp for either a Barney, Big Bird, or Winnie The Pooh full body suit for your undead. Almas has never been so cheerful!

/Not to mention Andorans are in LOVE with my necromantic cleric for the service I did for them.

2/5 *

Quote:
Fanatics are people who refuse to compromise. If there's one class that specialises in refusing to compromise it's the paladin. Not all paladins to be sure, but its the class most likely to swing that way.

I agree entirely. And if a Paladin wants something done a certain way, the tables I've been at, everyone, including the GM, does everything in their power to bend over backwards and convenience them. (I actually *finally* understand why a lot of people hate Paladins, it's because of the way some players play them, not the class itself. Never had that problem in my home games!).

So my question is: If I want my way and the Paladin wants his way, and all of this has nothing to do with faction missions, what happens? Who's being the jerk (maybe both?), because you have 2 PCs who want something for in-character reasons only.

In reality, someone always compromises, and I can tell you it's never the Paladin.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Jason S wrote:


So my question is: If I want my way and the Paladin wants his way, and all of this has nothing to do with faction missions, what happens? Who's being the jerk (maybe both?), because you have 2 PCs who want something for in-character reasons only.

In reality, someone always compromises, and I can tell you it's never the Paladin.

If a LN Cleric of Asmodius casts animate dead on fallen enemies to use in combat and the Paladin is threatening to kill them, then the player playing the Paladin is the one who must compromise. That would turn it into 'being a jerk player' using the Paladin class as a cheap cover.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

You say "Evil" I say "Opportunity"

2/5 *

Shar Tahl wrote:
If a LN Cleric of Asmodius casts animate dead on fallen enemies to use in combat and the Paladin is threatening to kill them

That would be brutal though, because Raise Dead wouldn't work. As a DM, I'd consider that PVP unless a TPK was otherwise inevitable.

1/5

Jason S wrote:
Shar Tahl wrote:
If a LN Cleric of Asmodius casts animate dead on fallen enemies to use in combat and the Paladin is threatening to kill them

That would be brutal though, because Raise Dead wouldn't work. As a DM, I'd consider that PVP unless a TPK was otherwise inevitable.

Not following here. The paladin is threatening to destroy the zombies painstakingly raised (at no small expense) by the cleric from the corpses created by killing off enemies. These certainly aren't party members, and might not even be intelligent (animal corpses, for instance).

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Jason S wrote:
Shar Tahl wrote:
If a LN Cleric of Asmodius casts animate dead on fallen enemies to use in combat and the Paladin is threatening to kill them

That would be brutal though, because Raise Dead wouldn't work. As a DM, I'd consider that PVP unless a TPK was otherwise inevitable.

Then, As a DM for the Pathfinder Society, you would be willingly letting a Paladin break the rules of the Pathfinder Society, thereby breaking one of his vows(The paladin must respect legitimate authorities), by interfering with another society members actions. Zealot paladins joined the Society at will and know that all members are not the "good guys" (Cheliax most often). They must respect the rules of the authority they work under and not act like a religious nutt acting on impulse.

This is a sensitive issue to me, as I have been on the recieving end oif a "don't be a jerk" violator (Faction mission object destroyed and not disputed by DM) . I have very little tolerance for jerks now.

Grand Lodge 5/5

As to the primary question, I think the views I have were already stated many times I won't rehash in detail. They're all on the same time working towards the same primary (though sometimes with semi competing secondary) goals. I don't mind some IC jostling over these things but it shouldn't disrupt a game. My Qadiran gnomish bard has been known to put "dirty rotten Taldan" jokes in his comedy routine so...yeah.

I do have a semi-related question though and am interested as to the general thought. Said bard has on more than one occasion been asked to lend his social talents to aid in a less socially apt character of another faction's mission. Normally I've accepted though PFS rules prevent me from being a true Qadirian about it (I can't charge a fee for it :P ). On occasion I haven't involved my character for whatever reason. It's gotten to the point where in one module Cal was responsible for nearly all the PA gain in the adventure.

Thoughts?

Scarab Sages 3/5

cblome59 wrote:
Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:

I see this argument pop up from time to time and here is my viewpoint.

No one in the Pathfinder Society made anyone join the Pathfinder Society (although you might make an argument that Cheliax might have twisted someone's arm, blackmailed or any number of threats.) The fact of the matter is that once you walk in the doors and begin training, you know what you are in for. You will be told on no uncertain terms that that not everyone you will be working with is a "good guy". Those that can't work with this are weeded out and I assume that more than a few paladins and clerics have been shown the door before becoming Pathfinders, just as many other types have been for their intolerances.

The factions assume that you can avoid entanglements with other pathfinders to get you missions accomplished.

So when a Paladin has a problem with what another person does, the need to understand that they server a higher goal and need to focus beyond the here and now and work on the big picture, as unclear as that may be.

At the same time, there are lines that players/characters can cross that make the game no longer enjoyable. If things can't be worked out on the table IC or OOC, then each player is in their right to walk from that table.

If others make the game no fun for you, then it is up to you to change your situation.

I'm not sure how the characters can make the game not fun, But I can see how a player might make it so. There is nothing that can be done about fixing all of the bad chemistry that can happen between players and/or players and GMs. Not everyone you will meet at a table will be someone that you want to be friends with.

As far as characters though, I just don't see that being the case. If you can't find a way to have fun, that's on you and IMHO you should take the personal responsibility to try and find a way to connect to the game and give it your best.

Now I can understand that if you can't have fun after giving it a try, and you walk away from the table, that's understood. But society games are short enough that you should be able to finish it and move on.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Michael Meunier wrote:
Thoughts?

One way for Qadirans to "get paid" for helping others, is to have the player used existing, expendable resources in-game. Things like Wands of CLW, a scroll/potion are good examples. Technically, they are not giving you any wealth, and there is no restriction against using your own resources on another character.

Scarab Sages 3/5

Jason S wrote:
Shar Tahl wrote:
If a LN Cleric of Asmodius casts animate dead on fallen enemies to use in combat and the Paladin is threatening to kill them

That would be brutal though, because Raise Dead wouldn't work. As a DM, I'd consider that PVP unless a TPK was otherwise inevitable.

I'd disallow the animating of party members for that alone. There are usually plenty of dead bodies around so the need for party member is a bit on the silly side.

The Exchange 4/5

Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:
Jason S wrote:
Shar Tahl wrote:
If a LN Cleric of Asmodius casts animate dead on fallen enemies to use in combat and the Paladin is threatening to kill them

That would be brutal though, because Raise Dead wouldn't work. As a DM, I'd consider that PVP unless a TPK was otherwise inevitable.

I'd disallow the animating of party members for that alone. There are usually plenty of dead bodies around so the need for party member is a bit on the silly side.

No one suggested raising party members at all. That would cause someone to not be able to 'Raise Dead' themselves and instead need a 'Resurrection.' That would most definitely get a character kicked out of PFS.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

That is true. But his responce was to my post where I specifically said fallen enemies, at which he responded to disallow it and call it PVP.

The Exchange 4/5

Shar Tahl wrote:
That is true. But his responce was to my post where I specifically said fallen enemies, at which he responded to disallow it and call it PVP.

How is raising enemies you just killed to become undead minions PVP? Me thinks there be some misunderstandings afoot...

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

I agree...
raising fallen enemies = not PvP
raising fallen allies = PvP
Mostly because they would no longer be eligible for a Raise Dead

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think my next character is going to be a Paladin/Necromancer.

The Exchange 4/5

Dragnmoon wrote:
I think my next character is going to be a Paladin/Necromancer.

I don't even know how work this.

The Exchange 5/5 5/55/5 *

Hmm - wondering if I'm summing this situation up correctly.

I have a PC & I want to have a fun time playing.

You have a PC & you want to have a fun time playing.

If my fun gets in the way of your fun, I have to back off & let your fun prevail.

If your fun gets in the way of my fun, I have to back off & let your fun prevail.

Right.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Joseph Caubo wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
I think my next character is going to be a Paladin/Necromancer.
I don't even know how work this.

I will figure it out, or come up with some lame excuse how it works..;)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Dragnmoon wrote:
I will figure it out, or come up with some lame excuse how it works..;)

Hrmmm, maybe my sense motive is off, but is that sarcasm? :-)

Liberty's Edge 1/5

If someone's having fun violates the rules of the Society, they must back off. If both are acting within the rules of the Society, then the DM must mediate and assist with a soultion that makes both happy.

Omega Man wrote:

Hmm - wondering if I'm summing this situation up correctly.

I have a PC & I want to have a fun time playing.

You have a PC & you want to have a fun time playing.

If my fun gets in the way of your fun, I have to back off & let your fun prevail.

If your fun gets in the way of my fun, I have to back off & let your fun prevail.

Right.

Scarab Sages 3/5

Michael Meunier wrote:

As to the primary question, I think the views I have were already stated many times I won't rehash in detail. They're all on the same time working towards the same primary (though sometimes with semi competing secondary) goals. I don't mind some IC jostling over these things but it shouldn't disrupt a game. My Qadiran gnomish bard has been known to put "dirty rotten Taldan" jokes in his comedy routine so...yeah.

I do have a semi-related question though and am interested as to the general thought. Said bard has on more than one occasion been asked to lend his social talents to aid in a less socially apt character of another faction's mission. Normally I've accepted though PFS rules prevent me from being a true Qadirian about it (I can't charge a fee for it :P ). On occasion I haven't involved my character for whatever reason. It's gotten to the point where in one module Cal was responsible for nearly all the PA gain in the adventure.

Thoughts?

Sounds like a senario for my ethics class. Rand would say that the effort was worth it since you would be working from a angle of enlightened self interest. Working from a egotist point of view, I'd say that the sacrifice was worth it since the reward was greater; i.e. your general security.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Joseph Caubo wrote:
No one suggested raising party members at all. That would cause someone to not be able to 'Raise Dead' themselves and instead need a 'Resurrection.' That would most definitely get a character kicked out of PFS.

It should never get to that. The GM should just politely advise the necromancer that animating party members isn't allowed, and why, and move on.

Having said that I never raise my characters for reasons mentioned elsewhere, so if my character dies and the necromancer wants to animate her then I'm quite happy with that. I'd just ask to play the zombie for the rest of the scenario... :-)

Edit: animating, not raising.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 **

I always thought the campaign's stance was a bit of a double standard and puts too much of the responsibility to 'cooperate' on the shoulders of the good/goodish characters.

If you get upset about me violating your undead it's entirely with your rights.

If I get upset about you violating the souls of once living beings I'm being a jerk?

It's for this reason why I don't think I'll ever play a paladin in PFS. You're required to be the most wishy-washy paladin ever to just exist within the campaign.

It seems to me that potential necromancers should be required to check with the party before making undead minions out of slain foes. If anyone voices objections against it, the necromancer should relent.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Feral wrote:

I always thought the campaign's stance was a bit of a double standard and puts too much of the responsibility to 'cooperate' on the shoulders of the good/goodish characters.

If you get upset about me violating your undead it's entirely with your rights.

If I get upset about you violating the souls of once living beings I'm being a jerk?

It's for this reason why I don't think I'll ever play a paladin in PFS. You're required to be the most wishy-washy paladin ever to just exist within the campaign.

It seems to me that potential necromancers should be required to check with the party before making undead minions out of slain foes. If anyone voices objections against it, the necromancer should relent.

If they're *my* undead, then yes - hands off. Its no different to my necromancer sundering or melting your paladin's sword.

If they're the souls of the once living then they can be considered loot and are up for grabs. Any decisions about how that loot is used should be made in the same way as divvying up a cloak of resistance the party found. It brings new meaning to the term human resources. Who can make best use of it? The paladin will argue that burial is the best use; the necromancer will argue that burial later, after they've proved useful in combat, would be better.

1/5

Feral wrote:
It's for this reason why I don't think I'll ever play a paladin in PFS. You're required to be the most wishy-washy paladin ever to just exist within the campaign.

Or at least you're not permitted to play the standard "Lawful Stupid Jerkass" that a lot of people insist on playing Paladins as. The typical Paladin who becomes a member of the Society isn't going to be a smite machine. He knows, going in, that he may be required to do some questionable things and associate with people most members of the class wouldn't be caught dead with.

However, Pathfinders also have an opportunity that Those Other Guys can never dream of - their efforts will be recorded and potentially released to the world at large.

Perhaps you're looking to chronicle ancient horrors that once threatened entire continents, in the hope that future generations will know what they looked like and thus be able to fend off attempts to repeat it.

Maybe you want to, literally, write the book on hunting undead, including documenting things that even commoners can do to protect themselves, along with clearing up misconceptions and 'folk legends' that don't work.

Ultimately, it's the player's responsibility to come up with a character who won't violate the campaign rules. Because Good alignments can incorporate a broad range of intolerant behaviors, it makes creating a Good character a bit harder than a neutral one, but that's just the way things fall - the Pathfinder Society isn't the place for Galahad the Pure, and this neither is PFSOP.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:
cblome59 wrote:
Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:

I see this argument pop up from time to time and here is my viewpoint.

No one in the Pathfinder Society made anyone join the Pathfinder Society (although you might make an argument that Cheliax might have twisted someone's arm, blackmailed or any number of threats.) The fact of the matter is that once you walk in the doors and begin training, you know what you are in for. You will be told on no uncertain terms that that not everyone you will be working with is a "good guy". Those that can't work with this are weeded out and I assume that more than a few paladins and clerics have been shown the door before becoming Pathfinders, just as many other types have been for their intolerances.

The factions assume that you can avoid entanglements with other pathfinders to get you missions accomplished.

So when a Paladin has a problem with what another person does, the need to understand that they server a higher goal and need to focus beyond the here and now and work on the big picture, as unclear as that may be.

At the same time, there are lines that players/characters can cross that make the game no longer enjoyable. If things can't be worked out on the table IC or OOC, then each player is in their right to walk from that table.

If others make the game no fun for you, then it is up to you to change your situation.

I'm not sure how the characters can make the game not fun, But I can see how a player might make it so. There is nothing that can be done about fixing all of the bad chemistry that can happen between players and/or players and GMs. Not everyone you will meet at a table will be someone that you want to be friends with.

As far as characters though, I just don't see that being the case. If you can't find a way to have fun, that's on you and IMHO you should take the personal responsibility to try and find a way to connect to the game and give it your best.

Now I can understand that if you can't have fun after giving it...

Agreed.

This came up in the past with players who saw nothing wrong in killing defenseless enemies who had surrendered to you. They called it justice, I called it murder. I believe the Geneva Conventions call it murder as well ;). It's a line I will not cross with any of my characters. If it can be worked out IC great, if it can't, I'm not travelling with murderers, plain and simple. In the end, the onus is on me (the player with the issue) to remove myself from a bad situation as due to the PVP rules, it really is my own only option.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 **

Like I said, I don't get it. I don't think I ever will.

Why is it the good character's responsibility to look the other way and put his own ethos aside in the name of cooperation? Why isn't the evil character just as responsible?

Fortunately, most of my PFS characters are pretty lax on the morality scale.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Feral wrote:

Like I said, I don't get it. I don't think I ever will.

Why is it the good character's responsibility to look the other way and put his own ethos aside in the name of cooperation? Why isn't the evil character just as responsible?

Fortunately, most of my PFS characters are pretty lax on the morality scale.

Most of it seems to come down to convenience. It's easier to let the eviler guy do his thing as the party tends to benefit from dirty deeds more than benevolent ones.

In practice, the vibe of the table runs the show. The alignment of the table in total (or, more often, the laxness/strictness) seems to determine who is being the jerk. After all, it tends to be about making the most people happy with what you provide.

More people just have an easier time looking the other way than they do doing the right thing.

1/5

Feral wrote:
Why is it the good character's responsibility to look the other way and put his own ethos aside in the name of cooperation? Why isn't the evil character just as responsible?

It's not the character's responsibility at all. It IS the responsibility of the PLAYER to not bring a character who isn't compatible with the campaign.

To use an example from another OP system entirely, you're not allowed to play a cop in Shadowrun Missions, because that's a campaign about being a criminal. Since this is a campaign about being a member of the Pathfinder Society, AS A PLAYER it is part of your obligation to bring a character who is plausibly a member of the Society. An inflexible goody-two-shoes Paladin isn't plausible in that role.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 **

I think it's a bit unfair to call this theoretical character an 'inflexible goody-two-shoes Paladin'. There are plenty of characters that would have a hard time looking the other way while an allied necromancer raising the undead that are neither inflexible, goody-two-shoes, or paladins (clerics/oracles/inquisitors of Pharasma all come to mind).

So do you propose paladins just be banned within PFS since their class comes with the mechanical requirement that their allies not perform evil?

Quote:
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think the key word there is "consistently". If a party member raises the dead now and then in order to accomplish accepted goals, then although a Paladin might grumble, complain, or suggest alternative tactics, they wouldn't be freaking out or anything (at least not inherently - if the player designed the Paladin to be a psychopath, then that's another issue entirely).

1/5

Feral wrote:
I think it's a bit unfair to call this theoretical character an 'inflexible goody-two-shoes Paladin'. There are plenty of characters that would have a hard time looking the other way while an allied necromancer raising the undead that are neither inflexible, goody-two-shoes, or paladins (clerics/oracles/inquisitors of Pharasma all come to mind).

Any character that falls under the heading of "Cannot even temporarily tolerate the actions of an assigned ally when they violate a personal code" already doesn't qualify to be a Pathfinder. That's in the PFSOP guide, it's in Seekers of Secrets, and it will probably be in the PFS Field Guide next month. You MUST have a degree of flexibility to participate.

Quote:

So do you propose paladins just be banned within PFS since their class comes with the mechanical requirement that their allies not perform evil?

Quote:
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.

No, because the campaign organization makes it clear that any such alliance IS of a temporary nature and serves to forward whatever the Paladin's goals are for being a member of the Society in the first place. The basic assumption is that any scenario will get the best people for the job. Since outright evil characters are still forbidden in play, this is presumed to not come up often enough to require Paladins to leave the Society.

Again, it is the player's job to come up with a reason that is overriding enough for a character to be willing to put up with things that they may find offensive for a single mission or two. You can have a discussion of the problems at the table, but in the end you are not allowed to bring a character to the table who will use an inflexible moral code as an excuse to be disruptive.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Chris Kenney wrote:
You can have a discussion of the problems at the table, but in the end you are not allowed to bring a character to the table who will use an inflexible moral code as an excuse to be disruptive

The same can be said for a character playing an Undead based concept. They should be well aware that there are those who will have issue with them and that they could be causing an issue by simply playing their character (same as the Paladin)

The question Feral is raising is why does it almost always come down to the 'good' character having to be more flexible than the 'shady' or 'evil' character.

The responsible thing to do at a table you are not familiar with is to find out if there is anyone there that you will have an issue with, discuss it ahead of time, and see what can be done before the mod even starts.

1/5

cblome59 wrote:
The question Feral is raising is why does it almost always come down to the 'good' character having to be more flexible than the 'shady' or 'evil' character.

Simply put: Because the campaign gives preference to saying "Yes" to a concept over saying "No." The PFS is a shady organization, when you get right down to it. Until next month, it's really impossible to play a consistent "good guy" type anyway - Andoran is as close as it gets, and even working for them you have to lie, assassinate, extort, and do any number of other nasty things to stay on your game.

First, let's get a few things straight here. There seems to be either confusion or intentional clouding of the issue.

IC wise, you MUST be tolerant of others' methods to a great extent. It's right there in the rules.

This rules out a number of character concepts, and yes, the types of concepts ruled out trend towards the strongest ethical and moral stances. These characters are not Pathfinder material. If a character simply can't stand the thought of someone doing something, then you, the player, shouldn't be sitting down at a table with that character. Really, it is that simple - it's part of the campaign rules, and if you don't like it you shouldn't play.

OOC, there's a little more room for negotiation, but not a lot. It's the nature of Org Play. You implicitly agree to sit down with whatever other people want to bring to the table and make it work. If you can convince them to go another direction, that's fine, but if not your choices are really to put up with it or walk.

That said, it's not like there aren't controls at the other end of the spectrum. While a lot of people keep bringing up "evil" the fact is is that outright evil characters are forbidden by the same rules that forbid good players from being intolerant of borderline evil actions. The campaign intentionally plays fast and loose with the rules regarding spellcasting turning a person evil because there's no real way to measure that in this context. That said, truly nasty behavior such as the slaughtering of innocents or other unambiguous actions can and should get a character ejected from the campaign.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Chris Kenney wrote:
Simply put: Because the campaign gives preference to saying "Yes" to a concept over saying "No."

And this would be the best answer I've seen, Feral.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
I will figure it out, or come up with some lame excuse how it works..;)
Hrmmm, maybe my sense motive is off, but is that sarcasm? :-)

I was serious... First thing that comes my my head is a really "off" Paladin/Necromancer of Shelyn. I can get really freaky with that.

4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chris Kenney wrote:
cblome59 wrote:
The question Feral is raising is why does it almost always come down to the 'good' character having to be more flexible than the 'shady' or 'evil' character.

Simply put: Because the campaign gives preference to saying "Yes" to a concept over saying "No." The PFS is a shady organization, when you get right down to it. Until next month, it's really impossible to play a consistent "good guy" type anyway - Andoran is as close as it gets, and even working for them you have to lie, assassinate, extort, and do any number of other nasty things to stay on your game.

First, let's get a few things straight here. There seems to be either confusion or intentional clouding of the issue.

IC wise, you MUST be tolerant of others' methods to a great extent. It's right there in the rules.

The PFS isn't by nature a shady organisation at all. It performs a service and can be represented by all types of characters. Some of whom may have questionable morals, but as a whole the only shady part of the PFS is the fact they don't advertise their presence (except in Absalom).

No-one should hold another character to ransom, no more than another should seek to antagonise another at the table. If you are playing a contentious character expect the DM to notice and act accordingly.

nb: it's not only a Paladin that might have an issue with evil or evil acts, any good character; Cleric, Rogue, Ranger will have exactly the same issues (or should as role-played guided by alignment).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

lastblacknight wrote:
nb: it's not only a Paladin that might have an issue with evil or evil acts, any good character; Cleric, Rogue, Ranger will have exactly the same issues (or should as role-played guided by alignment).

I play a lawful good cleric and killing murderers or attempted murderers (they just attacked the party) is perfectly within the bounds of 'good'. Just because they've been defeated and tied up doesn't mean they suddenly turned into innocents. Any legitimate authority will hang them for their crimes, and often the only practical alternative is to let them go. Releasing them so they can kill again would be evil imho, so executing them is by far the best option.

If they turn out to be misguided, or they've been lied to and thought we were somebody else, or they were dominated, then that's different. I'm all for giving them a chance to explain themselves first. My non-good characters might not bother giving them that chance, and there's the difference.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

cblome59 wrote:
The question Feral is raising is why does it almost always come down to the 'good' character having to be more flexible than the 'shady' or 'evil' character.

It doesn't. There's a difference between 'doing' (using your class given abilities), and telling other people what they can or can't do.

Lets turn this around and imagine that the lawful good cleric wants to summon a hound archon. The necromancer at the table objects strongly and threatens to leave the table because summoning lawful good creatures offends his character's code of ethics. Likewise, he also objects to the paladin casting good-aligned spells such as PfE or channeling positive energy, as he finds both to be deeply offensive. When the cleric goes ahead and summons the archon anyway the necromancer first complains to the GM about the cleric being intolerant and then tries to kill the archon by channeling negative energy 'carelessly'.

If you think the necromancer is being a jerk there you'd be right (imo anyway), but that's how many of us see paladins when they try to tell us what to do.

Scarab Sages 3/5

Feral wrote:

Like I said, I don't get it. I don't think I ever will.

Why is it the good character's responsibility to look the other way and put his own ethos aside in the name of cooperation? Why isn't the evil character just as responsible?

Fortunately, most of my PFS characters are pretty lax on the morality scale.

Because your characer agreed to do so when he joined the PFS. That's it plain and simple. There are no "evil" characters in PFS. You might not like their actions and they might not like yours, but that's what you agreed to at the begining.

Let me spin this for you. Why did your Paladen join an organization that knowingly employs assassins?

Scarab Sages 3/5

cblome59 wrote:
Chris Kenney wrote:
You can have a discussion of the problems at the table, but in the end you are not allowed to bring a character to the table who will use an inflexible moral code as an excuse to be disruptive

The same can be said for a character playing an Undead based concept. They should be well aware that there are those who will have issue with them and that they could be causing an issue by simply playing their character (same as the Paladin)

The question Feral is raising is why does it almost always come down to the 'good' character having to be more flexible than the 'shady' or 'evil' character.

The responsible thing to do at a table you are not familiar with is to find out if there is anyone there that you will have an issue with, discuss it ahead of time, and see what can be done before the mod even starts.

I would agree to what you have said here, polling the table might not be a bad idea.

But it's worth mentioning that the way that fiction is written for Paizo is very much in the fantasy pulp concept. Being good is not easy. Those characters that are good and want to do good acts are more than likely going to have to be cagey while doing so.

Some players are going to think that this is a hinderance to thier playing style. I consider it a opportunity. I like the idea of a Paladin being a pious man(or woman) lost in a sea of grey issues. It means that when that character does something good, it's a big deal. A Paladin that goes about in a world of black and white IMHO, doesn't stand out as much because there are lots of people like him.

Pathfinder Paladins are sort of extra special. They're like errant knights, using the society as a method of traveling the world to spread evidence of their faith. Their consorting with other adventures who maybe less than pure is their burden and it is their virtue that keeps them safe from falling into that trap.

Scarab Sages 3/5

It seems to me that part of this argument is based in an ago old argument as to how a Paladin's code is resolved with ethics.

This is strictly me riffing with just a basic college ethic course, but please bear with me.

Basically there is a consequentialism vs. non-consequentialism argument here. I think that a common view of the paladin is that they are basically rule utilitarianists. That is to say that they have list have a list of rules that is passed to them from their faith and they expect that those rules apply to society. These rues basically state that if society followed these rules that the largest part of society would benefit and the greatest amount of good would be achieved. When bad things happen, Paladins step in to correct the issue.
But in the “Inner Sea” region, I think there is a more evolved way paladins might work. Before I go on, Please understand that this is my personal opinion, and but I think that I have a leg to stand on here when I say that a good part of the known lands have reached an equivocal point to Earth’s “Age of Enlightenment”, specifically Taldor, Andoran, Cheliax, Ustalov, Absalom, Galt and possibly a few others that I am failing to remember. So I think that many Paladins might work in an ethical code closer to the works of Kant.
Kantian ethics is based on a person’s duty to do the right thing, so the goal in applying his principles in any situation is to determine what the right thing to do is. Our tools in determining the right thing to do are universality and respect for persons. So any Kantian solution to a problem has to pass both of these tests.
Universality can be explained thusly: “Could I honestly want this action to be the moral standard that everyone else would follow?”
It’s my opinion that act reflect upon the individual, not the group, so while a member of the part might not be as upstanding as the Paladin, the Paladin also doesn’t want to take advantage of the fellow party member by denying their freedom to act, hence the respect for persons.
By now I’m sure that many of you are rolling your eyes or have drifted of now and as I write this I even hesitate posting it. The underling point of my message is that there are many ways to look at ethical issues and many different ways of looking at looking at paladins as well.
The fact of the matter is when people mention that a paladin would or would not act a specific way; I have to say that it’s not a universal truth. Since ethics is not one road but many roads, neither Paizo, nor any other publishers can accommodate all concepts of ethical practice.
In other words, when playing a paladin, when it comes to ethics, “Your mileage may vary.”

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Stormfriend wrote:
Just because they've been defeated and tied up doesn't mean they suddenly turned into innocents.

And this is where we will have to disagree Storm, which is completely fine.

It doesn't make them innocent, but it does make them defenseless and no threat to you. At this point you are just killing them in cold blood because they offended your sensabilities, something I would easily consider an evil act. If this is how people really feel, then I could just as easily start killing all the PCs when they get knocked out/lose a fight rather than other options given in some of the mods or that some of the other GMs like doing such as selling them into slavery. But wait, that would make me a bad guy GM....

BTW all, this has been a fun debate :)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Stormfriend wrote:
Just because they've been defeated and tied up doesn't mean they suddenly turned into innocents.

Being a Cleric doesn't necessarily mean you have to follow the same rigid tenets of the paladin, although thematically you probably should.

In the case of paladins of Iomedae (see Faiths of Purity p.26),
"When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives."

It may be somewhat ambiguous, but it seems to indicate that if you take a prisoner, you are not allowed to just "whack 'em" then you're done extracting information. Probably shouldn't/can't torture them either.

But it also seems to indicate that if you are confident the opponent is evil, you are not obligated to provide respite or quarter.

Scarab Sages 3/5

cblome59 wrote:
Stormfriend wrote:
Just because they've been defeated and tied up doesn't mean they suddenly turned into innocents.

And this is where we will have to disagree Storm, which is completely fine.

It doesn't make them innocent, but it does make them defenseless and no threat to you. At this point you are just killing them in cold blood because they offended your sensabilities, something I would easily consider an evil act. If this is how people really feel, then I could just as easily start killing all the PCs when they get knocked out/lose a fight rather than other options given in some of the mods or that some of the other GMs like doing such as selling them into slavery. But wait, that would make me a bad guy GM....

BTW all, this has been a fun debate :)

Which is where the hypothetical fails. If the prisoner is to dangerous tp let go, or pass on to authorities who don't have the resources to deal with the prisoner, the I think that the act is less than evil. Paladins are expected to take the law into their own hands.

But look what I did, all I did was add to the hypothetical, which is Is what I hate to do in this stuation.

As I said before ethics is not one road but many roads....

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:
cblome59 wrote:
Stormfriend wrote:
Just because they've been defeated and tied up doesn't mean they suddenly turned into innocents.

And this is where we will have to disagree Storm, which is completely fine.

It doesn't make them innocent, but it does make them defenseless and no threat to you. At this point you are just killing them in cold blood because they offended your sensabilities, something I would easily consider an evil act. If this is how people really feel, then I could just as easily start killing all the PCs when they get knocked out/lose a fight rather than other options given in some of the mods or that some of the other GMs like doing such as selling them into slavery. But wait, that would make me a bad guy GM....

BTW all, this has been a fun debate :)

Which is where the hypothetical fails. If the prisoner is to dangerous tp let go, or pass on to authorities who don't have the resources to deal with the prisoner, the I think that the act is less than evil. Paladins are expected to take the law into their own hands.

But look what I did, all I did was add to the hypothetical, which is Is what I hate to do in this stuation.

As I said before ethics is not one road but many roads....

Each individual situation must be assessed as it comes, which is why we tend to talk in generalities when it comes to these things.

There are certainly instance where I would kill a defenseless prisoner, just as there are situations where those who do so normally would not.

My main character is a Battle Oracle, he would give the baddy back his weapon so he could die in glorious combat. To do less is abhorent. To die in your sleep, the greatest of nightmares.

The Exchange 2/5

cblome59 wrote:


My main character is a Battle Oracle, he would give the baddy back his weapon so he could die in glorious combat. To do less is abhorent. To die in your sleep, the greatest of nightmares.

+1 I don't play a paladin in PFS, but this is what the one I played in LG would certainly have done should a captured enemy be deemed too dangerous to transport to local authorities. (As a GM, I would certainly give a lawful good character killing a helpless enemy a "strike".)

Silver Crusade 1/5

Our group has characters who loathe one another (Andoren paladin, Chelish barbarian), but even those two can get along long enough to carry out the Society's mission. They do not help each other in carrying out faction missions, but neither do they actively hinder each other.

Other than that, characters in our group do sometimes assist each other in carrying out rival faction missions. Perhaps the Andoren faction leader would take a dim view of my helping an Osirian, but when that same Osirian passes a bit on information to me the next week, I figure all is forgiven. Maybe that's not how it's supposed to work, but it's what we do. And we have fun, which is really the whole point of this thing.

This issue has not come up in our group, but I would think that wizards in PFS would share spellbooks.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

On subject

If a Paladin believes his morals are being compromised by another player it is in the rules of a Paladin to continue to adventure with that PC, just inform him that at the end of the scenario he needs to have Atonement cast on him.

slightly on subject

I find it odd that people have no problem if a Paladin compromises his morals which could cause him to become an ex-paladin, because of the action of another PC, but have a lot of issue with a Paladin performing similar acts that the other PC is doing to compromise the Paladins Morales.

There is too many inconsistencies in GMs views on alignment and the repercussion of doing things against your alignment. Different interpretations on acts against an alignment is a given because of different believes from many GMs and the ambiguousness of the Alignment System. The problem is that one GM may be consistent on his believes on Alignment even if it differs from another GM but be inconsistent on the repercussions from going against alignment.

Too many GMs are all about hitting the Pally hard *Or at least warn* for what they believe is Dishonorable, an Evil Act or breaking his Oath but do nothing when another PC does what they call an Evil Act for a Pally.

I see this as hypocritical and unfair, though the immediate repercussions may differ from a Pally and other classes, over all a PC who consistently performs evil acts becomes unplayable in PFS so in the end the repercussions are basically the same.

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / How tolerant are players supposed to be of each other's characters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.