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

[EDWARD DEANGELIS]

As a player who loves to play a Paladin and has for many years. I understand a lot of grumbles about Paladins comes from jealously (I kid I kid..or maybe I don't..))

But as a GM for PFS am I the only Gm out there that just wants to sit back and let the two characters smack the crap out of each other, and say whoever wins the spare is the right one. I mean I understand the whole no pvp rule, and don't be a jerk rule.

But there are times where characters will get into conflicts and it mostly happens with Paladins and then clerics etc.. and well the one character says you can't do that, it's wrong or unmoral or whatever, and the other character says I am gonna do it because it's what I wanna do or I think it's a good idea.
As a GM for Pfs I have been told to step in and take control, but what I really wanna do is just spread the other models off to the side and be like "First person to get the other down to 1/4 hps or lower, wins, no death" And then let them fight it out.

[Feral]

My character with the strongest sense of morality is my inquisitor of Erastil. He has a deep respect for life and refuses to strike down another humanoid. In combat with humans (even evil cultists) he does stuff like strike for sunder their weapons, grapple and disable, etc. In one encounter we were facing an evil cleric that had dropped our cavalier and was going to kill him next time he channeled negative energy.

This character had proven to be a killer not a particularly contributing member of his community and I had to make a really hard choice: Save the cavalier which required striking down the evil cleric with lethal damage or continue trying to subdue her knowing that her next channel would cost the cavalier his life. My inquisitor killed the cleric but felt horrible and sought out atonement afterward. He decided that, if the cavalier did not change his merciless ways, next time the cavalier's life was in jeopardy he would let him visit Pharasma's realm.

Fortunately, this character is run by a player in my local group that understands the consequences of his character's actions. I'm often worried that someone is going to get upset with me because I don't go out of my way to support them after they've purposely ignored my warnings that they are offending my code of conduct. I may not try to destroy the necromancer's zombie but I wouldn't make healing the necromancer a particularly high priority.

[Chris Kenney]

Dragnmoon wrote:

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.

The big thing is the type of response involved. Typically, when a borderline character intervenes in a Paladin's efforts to stay true to their alignment and code, it's because that alignment and code are hindering the group in achieving their shared goals.

When the reverse is true, the borderline character is - and again, this may be an overly broad generalization - trying to help the group. Furthermore, because of the way this game encourages specialization, there's a very good chance that what the paladin is objecting to can equate to telling said player "Please don't play at all."