| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Joko PO, my problem with the stance you've taken is that it says to the Good characters "You must compromise!" but lays no responsibility for compromise on those that want to run around murdering and torturing. Just as the Pathfinders are not a Good organization, neither are they Evil. Indeed, running around doing these sorts of things in the name of Pathfinders would ultimately be damaging to the Society, possibly getting them kicked out of various nations. And, as pointed out, PFS characters are actually prohibited from being Evil. I am absolutely willing to support compromise when appropriate, but not to the detriment of only Good characters so we're sure not to hinder those wanting to play Evil.
If you're adventuring with a paladin, make some accommodations so the player can enjoy his character. Smack a defeated bad guy around, but don't cut off body parts for trophies or decide to execute him after questioning. Don't go around doing everything you can to provoke the paladin "because it's funny" and don't expect the paladin to look the other way for Evil acts when you know that's not how they operate. That behavior is actually specifically called out in the Bullying rules! If you can't reign in the Evil I see no reason any players with Good characters should reign in stopping you, or why GMs should either.
|
The problem with “evil” faction missions has nothing to do, really, with whether the faction mission is evil or not.
It has to do with most GM’s not using the “creative solution” part of the Guide to allow for creative solutions to faction missions. The GM’s often make the missions be solved verbatim. As such, in when the morale (not to be confused with morality) of a faction assassination target is to give up when at or below 5 hp’s, then it is likely that killing said target may have to be after he surrendered.
I don’t think this is done on purpose, but rather the faction missions are kinda tacked on the end of a module without really thinking about repercussions such as this. It is rather, a lack of attention to detail by the author of the scenario/faction mission.
The problem with “evil” faction missions has nothing to do, really, with whether the faction mission is evil or not.
It has to do with most GM’s not using the “creative solution” part of the Guide to allow for creative solutions to faction missions. The GM’s often make the missions be solved verbatim. As such, in when the morale (not to be confused with morality) of a faction assassination target is to give up when at or below 5 hp’s, then it is likely that killing said target may have to be after he surrendered.
I don’t think this is done on purpose, but rather the faction missions are kinda tacked on the end of a module without really thinking about repercussions such as this. It is rather, a lack of attention to detail by the author of the scenario/faction mission.
I agree for the most part, but apparently there are some (torturing a guy to death, for instance) that are pretty easily defined as Evil by the rules of the game. I know Paizo wants to allow for a broad range of character types, but if they want to maximize player enjoyment and minimize subjective player/GM conflict across the spectrum they should (1) allow Evil characters or (2) not allow faction missions like this.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quite frankly, I would be speechless if a GM removed my character from play due to a faction mission that I had undertaken.I would ask how the GM is allowed to do so in the first place...
And if fulfilling a faction mission is viewed as an evil worthy of removing the pathfinders from the game by completing... wouldn't the actual scenario be saying so?
Sorry, a table judge doesn't have this call nor should they,
James
Agree with this 100%. If people want to play that way, then they need to run home groups not PFS.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, actually, yes it does.
If you are a police officer, you have a moral, ethical, and legal authority, and duty, to intercede if you witness a crime being committed.
Except that preventing another player from completeing a mission is prohibitted.
How are they to know it's a faction mission?
You shouldn't be discussing your missions with members of other factions; you shouldn't even allow them to know you're a member of a faction. You should be publicly denying that your faction even exists.
Yes, the players know that everybody at the table has a faction, but the characters don't.
Are you seriously saying that at the start of every scenario, the players are introducing themselves by their faction affiliations, and swapping mission notes?
Creepy Dude: "Hi, I'm working for the Evil Empire. If anyone finds a vial of devil's blood, can I have it? I need it to poison the Arch-Cleric of Sarenrae into sprouting bat-wings at the Solstice Festival."
Cleric of Sarenrae: "Yeah, OK, no problem, we'll help you. We're all buddies here, right?"
Comedy Gypsy: "And can we swing by the hospital? I need to cripple some doctors, for not paying their...Hurr, Hurrr....health insurance."
Paladin: "Sure, anything for a friend. I'll hold them down while you do it!"
If the factions are being played as they should, then all the good PCs are aware of, is that the guy next to them is committing an unspeakable act. An act they are honor-bound to stop. Why would they not?
|
|
Another thing not being taken into account, is that PCs can foil another's faction mission, without even trying.
If I'm Andoran/Silver Crusade, and I see a ship full of slaves, then I'm freeing those slaves. Why? Because that's what we do. It doesn't even have to be the Andoran/Silver Crusade faction mission. It's still central to the PCs beliefs.
I'm not going to ask anyone's permission, I'm not going to ask for a vote, I'm not going to ask the creepy dude who wears too much red, smells of brimstone, and cackles to himself whether that's all right with him.
"Freedom! Run with the wind in your hair, and the grass under your feet!...Oh, what's that? ...Oh, hang on, everyone. I was just in the middle of rescuing you, but apparently, Cardinal Fang is saying that he has orders to murder several of you in cold blood, so you'll all have to get back on the boat, and chain yourselves up. Go on, shoo. GET BACK ON THE SHIP! THAT'S AN ORDER! DON'T MAKE ME HURT YOU!"
|
|
Also on the issue of 'Don't interfere with another player's mission.'...
How many free passes does a person get?
Cheliax/Sczarni murders an apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
How many killings do you have to witness, in one session, before you start to suspect that your good buddy is just a murdering scumbag?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Also on the issue of 'Don't interfere with another player's mission.'...
How many free passes does a person get?
Cheliax/Sczarni murders an apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
None. In the interest of avoiding inter-player conflict the Sczarni/ Chelaxitive should say "When the rest of the party is distracted I need to take care of a little piece of business."
Similarly the player of the Silver Crusade character should make his character a little less curious.
Alternately you can have a silly cat/ mouse game where the paladin follows the sczarni character around because he doesn't trust him, wasting everyone's time.
Agree with this 100%. If people want to play that way, then they need to run home groups not PFS.
Quite frankly, I would be speechless if a GM removed my character from play due to a faction mission that I had undertaken.I would ask how the GM is allowed to do so in the first place...
And if fulfilling a faction mission is viewed as an evil worthy of removing the pathfinders from the game by completing... wouldn't the actual scenario be saying so?
Sorry, a table judge doesn't have this call nor should they,
James
Note that the "kick folks out of PFS for Evil" is over in the other thread...this is the Good can interfere with Evil thread. ;^)
I also wanted to point out again, as I didn't cover it specifically in my big summary post, that I do not support either a player or GM using real-world morality/ethics with no specific Pathfinder rules support for determining an action is Evil. As a very relevant example for Golarion, I would not support a character that decides a gay NPC is "evil" because of sexual orientation. Such a position is not supported by the rules of the game, and further is counter to material published by Paizo (in the form of, for example, gay paladin NPCs). This sort of judgment has absolutely no place in PFS. If a reasonable determination of Evil cannot be made from the Additional Rules section on alignment, then there is no basis for calling the action Evil in PFS.
None. In the interest of avoiding inter-player conflict the Sczarni/ Chelaxitive should say "When the rest of the party is distracted I need to take care of a little piece of business."
Similarly the player of the Silver Crusade character should make his character a little less curious.
Alternately you can have a silly cat/ mouse game where the paladin follows the sczarni character around because he doesn't trust him, wasting everyone's time.
I agree that the Sczarni should use secrecy to hide the mission objective. I do not agree that a paladin should "be less curious" if the other character has already demonstrated Evil intent. If the Sczarni fails in being sneaky, the paladin has no obligation to stop being Good.
|
|
Count me in as another vote for either getting rid of the evil factions, getting rid of the evil missions, or cutting the crap and getting rid of all pretence that PFS doesn't allow evil PCs.
If you're committing blatantly evil deeds, due to blatantly evil instructions, left by blatantly evil contacts, working for blatantly evil faction leaders, under blatantly evil members of the Decemvirate, to further the ends of a blatantly evil nation, who worship a blatantly evil god, who intends to tempt the whole world to evil, then don't even attempt to argue you're anything but evil.
You'd better learn how to carry out your missions stealthily, and solo, or you won't be completing any missions at all.
If you find you can't complete your missions, because you made a thug with no skills to his name, or because you blabbed to everyone that you're a devil-worshipper, then whose fault is that?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I agree that the Sczarni should use secrecy to hide the mission objective. I do not agree that a paladin should "be less curious" if the other character has already demonstrated Evil intent. If the Sczarni fails in being sneaky, the paladin has no obligation to stop being Good.
Eh. At some point you are just wasting everyone at the tables time as the characters dance around each other and players start plotting with each other to get the annoying paladin out of the way, or just do whatever nasty thing they need to finish in front of the paladin.
Also, when one player essentially sabotages another's faction mission there is often paybacks which gets pretty ugly.
|
|
How many free passes does a person get?
None. In the interest of avoiding inter-player conflict the Sczarni/ Chelaxitive should say "When the rest of the party is distracted I need to take care of a little piece of business."
That's what should happen, I agree.
What is apparently happening (for there to be any problem), is that they must be walking round extorting, crippling, killing and defiling in full view, and giving everyone else the finger, in the mistaken belief they have some kind of Plot Immunity, then whining that any PC who does the correct, and in-character thing to stop them, is carrying out PvP actions.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
How many free passes does a person get?None. In the interest of avoiding inter-player conflict the Sczarni/ Chelaxitive should say "When the rest of the party is distracted I need to take care of a little piece of business."That's what should happen, I agree.
What is apparently happening (for there to be any problem), is that they must be walking round extorting, crippling, killing and defiling in full view, and giving everyone else the finger, in the mistaken belief they have some kind of Plot Immunity, then whining that any PC who does the correct, and in-character thing to stop them, is carrying out PvP actions.
I'm not sure where that happened. Maybe I missed a few posts somewhere.
The Pathfinders are not a LG organization. Paladin's consistently disrupting the works of other Pathfinder's in the field is not tolerable.
Why do so many players seem to think that because Paladins are 'the good guys' they should be able to police an organization that is in no way beholden to the same tenants or morals?
Sure its a secret mission, that nobody is supposed to know about, but if that guy with full plate and a holy symbol interrupts my business, he is still interrupting my business.
Non-good characters compromise all the ****ing time! When the bad guys go down and the Paladin won't let anyone mercifully kill them, but instead insist the the group waste hours, sometimes days or even weeks for a so called fair trial (you think that as the only witnesses, the party just walks away from such a trial?). When there is an obviously icky individual offering help that the Paladin must refuse. When a little intimidation and threatening will get the info, but the Paladin insists that the captured foe be treated as an equal, brokering deals with someone who by all rights owes his life to the party that chose not to take it.
Just because the less than noble characters are more willing to cede the minor points and follow the paladin's step most of the time, doesn't mean that they aren't compromising.
I like paladins; they are a fun role-playing challenge, but if a paladin can't compromise and insists constantly on lawful good as some absolute mandate, maybe he is the one who has no place in the Pathfinders or PFS. They more than likely would either give up and leave, or get kicked out for being pushy all the time.
----
And NEVER have I mentioned killing an even remotely innocent character. Back in the OP, I told about how much trouble I had as an Andoran trying to kill two villains, one of which was the faction mission and another of which was a Chelish priestess with enough negative energy to share with us all. After these non-surrendering-type foes fell in battle, using their last ounces of strength to hurt us even more, my character attempted to coup-de-grace them. Furthermore it was the players who threw the conniption fit about my character's actions. If players can't handle coup-de-grace against a fight-to-the-death cleric of Asmodeus, how ugly will things get when they witness a Sczarni mission?
If a player was using Cheliax or Sczarni as an excuse to kill innocents, I would be appalled at both their lack of concern for other players and for the fact that they were ignoring their alignment and PFS restrictions on stuff. That is not the scenario in question, nor would it ever be. At that table the GM would quickly stop the idiocy either with a reprimand or a kick from the table.
----
I keep hearing the paladins out there make arguments against killing surrendered foes and innocents and how bad and evil it is and how a paladin must stop it. But what about the actively violent foes who make no attempt to surrender? Some people have it coming. I know how villainous that sounds in our modern reality, but in a fantasy setting, where vigilante hobos call many of the shots, its okay to kill bad guys. And sometimes its okay to kill people who aren't evil. As shocking as it may sound, there are even instances in a game, where its morally acceptable to kill a good sentient being (though each situation is unique and obviously not indicative of a norm).
|
Well, as to good interfering....I have several times acted in a way that fulfills their faction objective yet keeps my character's morality intact. Taldor wants to post up recruitment signs? Sure. They put em up, GM gives credit, I walk up and take em down as soon as the other PC's look away. Cheliax needs blood? Sure, but I'll sprinkle in some holy water. They get their blood, but its contaminated. There are many inventive ways to deal with faction objectives that don't actually aid the faction in question.
|
|
DRaino; just so you know, I've no argument with you.
Your experiences highlight the problem.
Your Sczarni is asked to carry out what you consider an evil act on an innocent, yet no-one bats an eye. In fact, they all fall over themselves to help you, in defiance of their own factions or class restrictions.
Your Andoran tries to finish off an evil combatant, and you get grief.
Blatantly evil PCs are allowed to write a 'neutral' on their sheet, and carry out sickening acts for their infernal or mobster masters, while the rest of us have bean-counter GMs admitting on these boards, that they intend to continue micromanaging every action, threatening to take good PCs out of the campaign for the slightest infraction. When asked whether they're paying the same attention to the good acts we do, they say no, because apparently no amount of good acts will ever cancel out a single allegedly evil one.
Then in the next breath, we're told we have to help the Chelaxians free some devils, and help the Sczarni cripple some orphans, and anyone who utters the slightest objection is causing PvP upset.
|
One of the most common forms of bullying I've seen has been, "I'm just playing my alignment." Just because you are lawful good, it doesn't mean that you get to determine what characters may or may not do.Well, actually, yes it does.
If you are a police officer, you have a moral, ethical, and legal authority, and duty, to intercede if you witness a crime being committed.
Some actions require a warrant, but some can rely on the discretion of the officer in the field.
I'd put a paladin or cleric of a LG deity on a similar standing as a law officer. You can't just sit back, and watch evil activities taking place, remarking on how it's 'diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks'.
I don't think so (beyond the issue that your paladin with no legitimate authority just broke into a building, assaulted it's occupant, and robbed them of all their material possessions so that they could sell them off later [because a lot of this is about a good character not having the authority to execute someone, but certainly has the authority to commit burglery and assault]). The characters LG alignment gives them no standing as as officer. No more that a LN alignment does.
My question is, if a paladin attempts to free slaves, is that LN character honor bound to stop that paladin and make sure they get to their rightful owners?
Following your morals doesn't make you a bully automatically. But I do feel that sabotaging someones faction mission because you arbitrarily feel that it's completion would be evil is anything but bullying other players.
DRaino; just so you know, I've no argument with you.
Your experiences highlight the problem.
Your Sczarni is asked to carry out what you consider an evil act on an innocent, yet no-one bats an eye. In fact, they all fall over themselves to help you, in defiance of their own factions or class restrictions.
Your Andoran tries to finish off an evil combatant, and you get grief.Blatantly evil PCs are allowed to write a 'neutral' on their sheet, and carry out sickening acts for their infernal or mobster masters, while the rest of us have bean-counter GMs admitting on these boards, that they intend to continue micromanaging every action, threatening to take good PCs out of the campaign for the slightest infraction. When asked whether they're paying the same attention to the good acts we do, they say no, because apparently no amount of good acts will ever cancel out a single allegedly evil one.
Then in the next breath, we're told we have to help the Chelaxians free some devils, and help the Sczarni cripple some orphans, and anyone who utters the slightest objection is causing PvP upset.
I feel that you missed the specifics of how my Sczarni mission played out.
I did not tell the other players at my table what specifically the character needed to do until I had concluded that there was no reasonable way to enlist the aid of the good characters in the mission, and that the chance of failure was too high to waste the play groups time on.
In both my Andoran mission and Sczarni mission, the GM was supportive and helpful of me as a player (offering a skill check in the Sczarni case to know that the actual deed required a skill check).
The difference was in the players, which were totally different groups. I got no impression from the first group that they would have been able to cope at all with a Sczarni in their party completing a mission. The second group seemed far more understanding, and though they insisted that their characters would have no part in evil acts, they as players tried to help me come up with a solution.
Knowing how blatantly evil of an act the mission was, I dropped it myself because I knew that my character would not be able to get the help he needed to complete it.
For those wanting to know why the Good get to be Good, but the rest can't be Evil (beyond just the PFS alignment rules), consider the following:
"If there's one thing the faction system has taught us since Pathfinder Society Organized Play began just a little less than three years ago, it's that players want to be good guys."
"[Cheliax] has also been the least popular in terms of active members in all three seasons of Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out why, though. These are the "bad guys" of the Pathfinder Society campaign. They're the ones who send players on missions to spread the influence of Hell and the Infernal armies of the House of Thrune. If there's one thing we can learn from the trend in membership between the Andoran and Cheliax factions, it's that players want to be heroes!"
"Since the very beginning of Pathfinder Society Organized Play at Gen Con 2008, [Andoran] has been the clear frontrunner in terms of popularity"
That's how the faction breakdown went leading up to GenCon this year. This is important to me as a GM, because it indicates that a majority of PFS players want to be "the good guys" and as such I need to ensure the majority of players can have a good time. Coupling this with the "no Evil" alignment requirement tells me that having the game lean toward Good and Neutral is preferable to allowing characters to perform Evil acts for whatever reason. For those wanting to play the morally gray/sometimes does Evil characters, you should keep in mind that the majority of PFS players aren't playing that way. That doesn't mean you have to give up on playing such a character, but it does mean you'll face more challenges. My advice is for characters like this, the player needs to assess the group beforehand. If you see a paladin or other strongly Good character, be prepared to either (a) dial back the villainy some or (2) be ready for opposition from the party. Option A, to me, is the better and would be more fun for me to play. If I were a Chelaxian and I spotted a paladin in the party, my goal would be to ensure the paladin thinks I'm the greatest, most benevolent person on the planet. That way when I have to slip off to take care of some business, the paladin waves and says, "Good luck!" If I spent the whole time threatening everyone we met, tried to kill captive prisoners, and reviled the paladin for his code I can't really say I'd expect him to let me out of sight for any length of time. When I got into more agreeable company--say a few Sczarni, fellow Chelaxians, and a Taldoran or two--then we can all mutually beat down folks to our hearts content (up to the point where the GM says we need to dial back or be Evil).
|
|
That's what should happen, I agree.
What is apparently happening (for there to be any problem), is that they must be walking round extorting, crippling, killing and defiling in full view, and giving everyone else the finger, in the mistaken belief they have some kind of Plot Immunity, then whining that any PC who does the correct, and in-character thing to stop them, is carrying out PvP actions.
Then is it only fair that a Taldor PC does the correct and in-character thing to stop all Andoran, Cheliax, Osirion, and Qadirian faction missions from being completed? Because their success is contributing to the loss of the chance of their once great empire from reclaiming it's glory.
Edit: Really, that is my question for everyone supporting Good characters whose players have decided to stop some action another party member is undertaking under the premise that they decided that he doesn't agree with that action and can't allow it to be completed.
Does that mean every faction gets to do this to the others? If a character leaves a note in a door frame intended for another, it is likely bad news for your leaders, it is definitely within character that you destroy it.
I'm seriously not saying that I disagree with a paladin not allowing a character to fireball an orphanage (and that is a silly example). For those supporting LG stopping execution orders, I see it no less than you telling every good character that they have the complete right to harass and interfere any suspected member of the Cheliax or Sczarni faction because they intend actions are undoubtedly for evil purposes.
At that point, the no PvP or no Bullying rules have no purpose at all if you can get GM permission to make another player miserable. And suggesting it is ok because the most popular faction is good is ridiculous to me.
Edit2: And it really bothers me thinking that some GMs are deciding that some faction missions are evil and allow for removal from the society. You are just playing the game and having fun and the GM decides to remove my character because he feels that it is evil for me to be killing evil wife murderers. One can make the argument that murder is evil committed by any person for any reason, but this is not the game I want to play! I don't want to have to debate the finer points of morality or take less reward/lose my character you deciding my character is evil just because I was assigned to play at your table any more than it would be riduclous for you to sit at a table I'm running and having your character killed by a random ninja prior to me doing the read aloud text in the adventure.
For those wanting to know why the Good get to be Good, but the rest can't be Evil (beyond just the PFS alignment rules), consider the following:
other stuff
(emphasis mine)
What is so difficult about the idea that there is a point between good and evil called neutral? Not every action is good or evil. Not everything that a paladin opposes is evil.
Killing a fallen and unrepentant foe is NOT evil. Nowhere in any part of the book can you find any evidence to that beyond the oft quoted scripture about respect for life and dignity of sentient beings.
My character, Nico, is a good guy, he's just not good aligned. The fact of the matter is, that like so many other pathfinders, he makes his fortunes by killing people and taking their stuff. The character experiences a meaningful internal conflict between the good person he was raised to be and the much less than good person he spent years being. The very reason that I am playing him is to explore his growth from neutrality towards good. I have spent a good deal of time working out who he is, why he is, where he is coming from, and what triggered the changes that he has made in his life up to this point.
He is not evil, but he does do some less than great deeds now and then. I do not play him as evil, never have, and probably never will (certainly not in PFS).
My actual argument, which I feel was ignored was asking why the paladin's lawful good gets to be more important than my fighter's neutral? Are you saying that the reason my play experience is less important is because the faction to which my character belongs is most popular?
What is so difficult about the idea that there is a point between good and evil called neutral? Not every action is good or evil. Not everything that a paladin opposes is evil.
Killing a fallen and unrepentant foe is NOT evil. Nowhere in any part of the book can you find any evidence to that beyond the oft quoted scripture about respect for life and dignity of sentient beings.
My character, Nico, is a good guy, he's just not good aligned. The fact of the matter is, that like so many other pathfinders, he makes his fortunes by killing people and taking their stuff. The character experiences a meaningful internal conflict between the good person he was raised to be and the much less than good person he spent years being. The very reason that I am playing him is to explore his growth from neutrality towards good. I have spent a good deal of time working out who he is, why he is, where he is coming from, and what triggered the changes that he has made in his life up to this point.
He is not evil, but he does do some less than great deeds now and then. I do not play him as evil, never have, and probably never will (certainly not in PFS).
My actual argument, which I feel was ignored was asking why the paladin's lawful good gets to be more important than my fighter's neutral? Are you saying that the reason my play experience is less important is because the faction to which my character belongs is most popular?
You'll note in the rest of my post that I actually specifically reference Neutral as preferable in PFS. Did you miss that somehow? I've pretty much consistently said all actions have to be considered in light of the alignment rules and as such sometimes the paladin's argument that an action is Evil (say, lying, cheating, stealing, etc.) is not going to hold water in comparison to the alignment rules. Chaotic, yes, Evil, no. The GM would correct the paladin as such and also be responsible to ensure the game proceeds.
At other times, however, that Neutral character is going to try something--such as killing a captured foe--and get opposed for that being Evil. I believe this is reasonable opposition using the alignment rules. Other GMs may not. Until such time as PFS states "Killing any foe is allows acceptable." or "Killing captured foes after combat is Evil." this conflict of determination will occur. Players that want to engage in killing captives, thus, need to be prepared for different GMs to rule different ways, and they need to be willing to accept that ruling and move on. If your character can reasonably be judged as "hurting, oppressing, and killing others [with] no compassion [and/or] without qualms...or out of duty to some evil deity or master" that action can reasonably be judged as Evil. I'm not sure how the rules can get any clearer than that, and I'm not sure how you can possibly say killing a captive is showing compassion (and it's doubly worse if you are dispassionately killing that captive out of duty to someone else). It doesn't matter, though, if you could convince me otherwise because we already see many other players and GMs agree with my position. So long as that is the case, you as a player need to understand the consequences of playing such a character.
Note that I'm not advocating that all GMs take my side, that killing a captive be noted in the PFS Guide as Evil. I'm simply stating that this is a "gray" area that is very easily determined to be Evil. If dealing with that conflict is not bearable as a player, I'd advise playing a different type of character. I say this because, as much as we've discussed this topic, I don't really see PFS making any major changes from the current state. Realistically, I think the best we can get out of this discussion is a common understanding of where the conflict will arise and prepare ourselves to deal with it as best we can so as to continue enjoying the game and allowing others to enjoy it as well.
|
|
If your character can reasonably be judged as "hurting, oppressing, and killing others [with] no compassion [and/or] without qualms...or out of duty to some evil deity or master" that action can reasonably be judged as Evil. I'm not sure how the rules can get any clearer than that, and I'm not sure how you can possibly say killing a captive is showing compassion (and it's doubly worse if you are dispassionately killing that captive out of duty to someone else). It doesn't matter, though, if you could convince me otherwise because we already see many other players and GMs agree with my position. So long as that is the case, you as a player need to understand the consequences of playing such a character.
Really though, I can take everything you just said and replace "bullying" being the offense and the paladin player as the one needing to understand the consequences of playing such a character. In my mind, in the general situation, they are the character is trying to push the other character around. You can say what you want, but I think that it is clear by the rules that if you can allow such at one table, I can reasonable do what I want at mine. I don't see my argument any less gray than your own.
An issue is, that I don't think what we would be doing would be fun for any of the players who thought they would be playing a game. Players are going to be miserable when this comes up when that find themselves with either me or you in this situation. One of the players is excluded and being punished for playing their character the they right way that they feel. The GM though should avoid this conflict between the characters and not promote it (in the case of the captured prisoner, one can bring up the idea of taking them to the local authorities who will execute them for their crimes, you can do the cliched thing of them escaping their bonds and attempting to go for a last attack on the party, poison capsules in a false tooth to escape inevitable interrogation, their boss killing them for their incompetence, or anything else that stops this from being a lose-lose inter-party fight), as a GM one can remove the argument the two have in various ways.
If you honestly feel that there is an evil faction mission in an scenario, you just shouldn't run it. If you have to, don't punish the players for it. I don't know anyone that plays in PFS to be questioned by a GM about the motives, intentions, and alignment of his actions.
Really though, I can take everything you just said and replace "bullying" being the offense and the paladin player as the one needing to understand the consequences of playing such a character. In my mind, in the general situation, they are the character is trying to push the other character around. You can say what you want, but I think that it is clear by the rules that if you can allow such at one table, I can reasonable do what I want at mine. I don't see my argument any less gray than your own.
An issue is, that I don't think what we would be doing would be fun for any of the players who thought they would be playing a game. Players are going to be miserable when this comes up when that find themselves with either me or you in this situation. One of the players is excluded and being punished for playing their character the they right way that they feel. The GM though should avoid this conflict between the characters and not promote it (in the case of the captured prisoner, one can bring up the idea of taking them to the local authorities who will execute them for their crimes, you can do the cliched thing of them escaping their bonds and attempting to go for a last attack on the party, poison capsules in a false tooth to escape inevitable interrogation, their boss killing them for their incompetence, or anything else that stops this from being a lose-lose inter-party fight), as a GM one can remove the argument the two have in various ways.
If you honestly feel that there is an evil faction mission in an scenario, you just shouldn't run it. If you have to, don't punish the players for it. I don't know anyone that plays in PFS to be questioned by a GM about the motives, intentions, and alignment of his actions.
And you realize you are supporting my point, right? With actions like this there will be disagreements/differing judgments by the GM. Until such time as PFS makes a list of all Evil acts (truly an impossible task, given that alignment is called out in the rules as subject to different interpretations), allows Evil characters (unlikely to happen), or simply throws out alignment entirely (also unlikely to happen) this type of conflict will arise and the GM has to make the call. The players have to respect the ruling of the GM and move on. If the players get stuck in the alignment argument, they obviously have more invested in that topic than simply wanting to play a game and have fun. If that is the case, the GM can instruct them to bring it up as a topic after completing the scenario.
For the Evil faction mission, you'll note I have not said anything about that here. Perhaps you are thinking about the other thread, or perhaps about some of the others that have played/run a scenario with such a mission. Indeed, the OP and others state the Sewer Dragons Sczarni mission is undeniably Evil. I have not played or seen that scenario, so I don't know. For the scenario I have referenced, I noted that the specific "kill without question" aspect of the Andoran method can be Evil, and other text in the module supports an Evil conclusion, but that there are means in the scenario to resolve the mission without Evil. My call there is that the missions actually (1) be worded so players don't think Evil is the only way and (2) make the alternate options obvious to GMs. So, as you say above I do indeed support providing alternate methods for players to proceed, and I think it's incumbent upon PFS authors to make such options available and obvious any and every time a faction mission is going to call for morally gray acts. If they fail to do so, PFS has to acknowledge that GMs can alter scenarios as needed to provide such an option if this is really about making sure everyone has fun.
And for the last sentence, I don't currently play with anyone in PFS that wants someone else going around ruthlessly killing captured foes. If a new player came into the group and wanted to do so, I'm not going to throw away the position of every other player to support this one new guy. There is obviously regional and location variation in groups (again, that's my point...and such will be compounded at large national cons drawing GMs and players from all over) and I've stated already that I don't expect every player and GM to conform to my (or my group's) position. Why are you saying I then need to conform to yours? Because giving up a position on what I clearly think is Evil is indeed asking for compromise from my position without compromise from yours. For me it's simple. At my table, don't execute prisoners. Find another solution. At your table, I play by your interpretation (and so would, for instance, not bring a paladin to the table).
And for the last sentence, I don't currently play with anyone in PFS that wants someone else going around ruthlessly killing captured foes. If a new player came into the group and wanted to do so, I'm not going to throw away the position of every other player to support this one new guy. There is obviously regional and location variation in groups (again, that's my point...and such will be compounded at large national cons drawing GMs and players from all over) and I've stated already that I don't expect every player and GM to conform to my (or my group's) position. Why are you saying I then need to conform to yours? Because giving up a position on what I clearly think is Evil is indeed asking for compromise from my position without compromise from yours. For me it's simple. At my table, don't execute prisoners. Find another solution. At your table, I play by your interpretation (and so would, for instance, not bring a paladin to the table).
So the issue isn't that characters, the society or the game mechanics find something evil at all. The clear issue here is that you find an action evil, and want to prevent other players from having their characters perform actions that you find evil.
When the GM has the certified villain mercilessly kill, it is okay. We know as players that the GM is not a merciless killer. Nobody tries to tell the GM that a monster doing monster things is bad. When a player has a 'hero' end a villains life, it seems to be a problem for you. Do we not know that a the player is just playing a character? Why do we try to tell the player that soldier doing soldier things is bad?
Obviously there can be situations where a particular character is consistently and pointlessly ending others lives, which is evil. But if 10 foes go down the the course of the adventure and only two of them (defined as most evil by the character) are killed, that is not the same situation.
You may feel that killing a fallen foe is evil, and I would challenge you to do research on the process of taking captives, when and where it occurs, and most importantly, the manner in which captives are taken. But the deeper issue that I see here is that a character committing an evil act is neither indicative of a character being evil, nor of the player being evil.
We are playing a game, and characters do things that we would never consider even remotely okay in the real world, but we move on because its what the game is and how its played. I would never kick in the door to someones place and attack them, but that is the bread and butter of roleplaying games. Game morality isn't the same as real morality, and getting upset with players and telling them that they are evil because their characters do things that you find wrong is not okay.
And that is essentially what you have been doing this whole time, and the reason I have gotten drug so far down into this argument. I am getting defensive because you are telling me that an action, which i know isn't evil, is evil. We can pretend all day that we are talking about character actions, but we aren't. This conversation has become about evil and the players. That seems to be why we aren't moving forward at all.
By telling us that you would not bring a paladin to a table where executing prisoners is okay, you are saying that you disagree strongly enough with our views of what good is that you wouldn't play a good character with us. That is not compromise in the least, that is a very painful insult. It tells me that I don't know the difference between good, neutral, and evil.
There are obvious straw men that I can create that would get us nowhere. Instead I'll cite a specific example.
Home game, CG fey sorcerer and NG ranger:
In a briar maze, we encountered a band of goblins. The sorceror cast entangle which began choking the goblins in a thorny mesh of organic barbed wire, which the sorcerer dismissed halfway through because he felt sick for torturing them. Later inside the fort, we found the man who had attacked the town, murdering dozens and torturing an important businessman to death. We had spoken to the next of kin as well as the outlaw's only living relative before leaving town. When we found him he was sleeping. Our characters prayed to Desna and Pharasma, and killed him.
Walking away from that adventure, I felt a little queasy about both these actions. My character had inflicted absolute horror on those goblins and taken a life while it slept. But the goblins were just monsters and there is nothing wrong with using a spell to remove foes from a fight, or deal damage to them. And the outlaw in the fort was marked for death already, taking him back would have just warned the rest of the fort of our presence, upset the townsfolk even more, and emotionally abused the villains sister. It was not a good action in the least. By today's standards, it was evil. But in Golarian, we were heroes, doing something neutral to achieve something good.
The best part of this example is how easily the first half can be overlooked. A CG character created an entangling web of organic barbed wire, which sliced and tore at the goblins who struggled to escape, while the NG character shot them. But, because we were in combat, it was acceptable to use such brutal tactics, and because they were goblins we didn't have to be concerned about the fact that we were killing them. In fact, our characters were concerned about what they were doing, and we as players made sure that the characters acted out that experience as more than just a simple combat encounter.
Both characters in this example are good characters. They do good things, feel compassion for others, show mercy when possible, seek to end suffering, etc.
But if you were to just see them execute a condemned criminal in his sleep, you would call them evil, and by extension, call me evil for not being able to tell that my character was being evil?
We are playing a game, and characters do things that we would never consider even remotely okay in the real world, but we move on because its what the game is and how its played. I would never kick in the door to someones place and attack them, but that is the bread and butter of roleplaying games. Game morality isn't the same as real morality, and getting upset with players and telling them that they are evil because their characters do things that you find wrong is not okay.
And that is essentially what you have been doing this whole time, and the reason I have gotten drug so far down into this argument. I am getting defensive because you are telling me that an action, which i know isn't evil, is evil. We can pretend all day that we are talking about character actions, but we aren't. This conversation has become about evil and the players. That seems to be why we aren't moving forward at all.
By telling us that you would not bring a paladin to a table where executing prisoners is okay, you are saying that you disagree strongly enough with our views of what good is that you wouldn't play a good character with us. That is not compromise in the least, that is a very painful insult. It tells me that I don't know the difference between good, neutral, and evil.
Can you show me where I'm saying you, a player, are evil as an actual person? Can you show me where I've argued that a character committing an Evil act makes that character Evil? Perhaps again you are confusing conversation here with the other thread, or what others have said? I've been very specific about my point applying to specific actions and to how those actions can be reasonably interpreted by the rules of the game. I've also specifically noted that real-world morality has no place in this judgment call by a GM--it has to be grounded specifically in the rules of the game. Can you show me where I'm saying otherwise? Where I'm using my own real-world morality to make judgments not just of an action, but of an actual player?
You say you "know" some action isn't evil. I and others say that by the rules of the game said action can indeed be reasonably judged as Evil. That's my whole point--that there will be disagreement on these morally gray areas so long as the GM is empowered to judge alignment rules in PFS. Can you clarify where specifically I've varied from this and moved into saying you are evil, or where I'm using real-world morality? It sounds like this is becoming felt as a personal attack on you, and I'm certainly not intending that. However, I'm also not likely to drastically change the stance I have on alignment that's been developed by nearly 30 years of gaming simply to accommodate others that disagree with my position. I can respect another position without adopting it...
For the statement on playing in your game, I'm unclear why it's unreasonable for me, as a player, to see that a particular GM and I differ on how we define Good. Knowing this, and respecting the right of the GM to determine how things function in his game, I then choose to play a character that won't cause conflict with the GM. How is that insulting? I'm respecting the right of the GM and respecting the right of the other players to enjoy the game without conflict. If you are saying the GM and all players have to agree on all aspects of alignment or else we're insulting one another, I find that an untenable position. I have disagreements right now with people I've played with for years on alignment issues. It doesn't mean we don't respect one another and at the end of the day we all acknowledge the GM makes the final call. Can you clarify how I am insulting you by taking this stance?
|
Also on the issue of 'Don't interfere with another player's mission.'...
How many free passes does a person get?
Cheliax/Sczarni murders an apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
Cheliax/Sczarni murders another apparent innocent in full view: "Gee, I guess that must have been his faction mission."
How many killings do you have to witness, in one session, before you start to suspect that your good buddy is just a murdering scumbag?
Growing up in Brooklyn NY we had a simple rule mind you own business and only the good die young ;-)
|
|
And you realize you are supporting my point, right? With actions like this there will be disagreements/differing judgments by the GM. Until such time as PFS makes a list of all Evil acts (truly an impossible task, given that alignment is called out in the rules as...
Sort of. I do agree that the GM must make that arbitration, but from just your posts, you seem too willing to punish people with different opinions on morality with you.
It is fine that you choose to not play a paladin at my table, but the problem is if a random player joins the table, they usually don't ask if you have anything against certain missions. It is really an horrible surprise to get half-way though the scenario only to find another member of the group stopping your mission.
One example that pops into my mind is a scenario where you are asked to execute a person in the adventure, but they are not one of the people you need to fight against in scenario. They just appear in the background of one of the encounters and your goal is to kill them while making it appear as an accident in the heat of the battle. This is not an easy mission to start with, as you are almost undoubtedly in this one without the aid of fellow party members. At the very least you have to make a moderate difficulty skill check, followed my another moderate difficulty skill check, followed my your attack and dealing enough damage to fell him. It is very hard for most characters I've seen to complete this mission successfully. It becomes pretty much impossible if following the attack the paladin ignores the battle you are end and rushes over and heals the probably near dead foe (and is allowed to by the GM).
I'm not sure what your exact response would be in this situation, but from your comments so far, my guess would be you would support any character stopping the completion of that faction mission (there is a very good reason for it, but that doesn't really matter as the rest of the party isn't privy to it). The result of this is a player has his work sabotaged and their character has just watched the healing character unknowingly destroy an unknown number of lives because of their arrogant belief that their morality is always right. I can't really see this scenario turning out fun for the group.
I would let the player know, through divine vision or evidence by the person that healing them would result in a much greater tragedy to occur, that letting him die may be the bad thing, but it is the best option in this circumstance. While it still may be upsetting to the healing character, I think that this outcome has the best chances of the scenario being fun for the party. The first player completes their completely legitimate mission and the second hopefully doesn't see the other player as a randomly evil jerk.
I am not asking you to conform to my opinion for what an evil action is. I am asking you and everyone else to never say, "I give you the choice of completing or faction mission or committing an evil action," or "there is nothing you can do, this other player is never going let you complete your faction mission and I'm not going to stop them."
A GM shouldn't grant evil marks just because you don't agree with a faction mission. Faction missions may sometimes be darker, but as they are printed being intended to be completed, characters should become no closer to becoming unplayable for doing them. If you don't feel that the scenario gives a non-evil (by your opinion) way to complete a mission, you should just tolerate it and not scan through their chronicle sheets to see if you want to expel their character from society play.
A GM should not encourage or even do nothing about inter-party conflict that one side doesn't want. You should make sure that different reasonable players are not making each others lives miserable. If a player is sneaking around to do covert stuff for their faction mission, just let them escape from that suspicious party member who has been following them around.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...you shouldn't even allow them to know you're a member of a faction. You should be publicly denying that your faction even exists.
Wait, what? I know sometimes there are individual faction missions that say "make sure none of your companions see you do X", but I don't remember any blanket statements about keeping factions secret. Was this new to the 4.0 Guide or something?
Blazej,
You seem to be assuming I'm granting Evil marks, branding entire faction missions as Evil, and going out of my way to prevent characters from completing their faction missions. I haven't said anything of the sort (there are other folks discussing this, and other threads). I'll follow whatever the campaign management determines in that regard. At present I've never had occasion to "mark a sheet" or any such thing because no player has ever found my judgment of a situation unreasonable, and as such no player has ever committed a known Evil act when other options exist. This is, of course, outside Evil campaigns (which I have both played in and GM'd).
I'm not basing my judgments on my morality, but rather on my interpretation of the rules of the game. Apparently some folks here don't believe this, but it's true. If I judged things based on my own morality I'd be breaking the rules of the game. Folks keep saying it seems like I'd oppose them at every step, but I've never said any such thing. I've specifically noted that I use the rules of the game to define Evil. If I sit at a table with players that obviously have darker leanings, I freely inform them of my rules interpretations. I don't spring it on anyone as a surprise. I do the exact same thing with pious players that want to label everything against their own personal code "evil" and tell them I won't support that view. Is there something I've said somewhere that implies I'll ambush players with my views?
Now, if we're rolling along in a standard game and suddenly someone does something that violates my interpretation of Evil, I inform them as such and give them opportunity to modify their action. I've never forced any player to take an action counter to what he wants to do or ambushed someone with a "bam, you're now Evil" award. I'm not familiar with the faction mission you reference, but in that case it most certainly sounds to me like the player needs to ensure the character's actions stay secret from other characters (note, I don't allow the other players to assume knowledge of the mission the characters don't have). If your character actually (seemingly to others) randomly attacks a person in sight of, for instance, a known benevolent healer (whether that healer is a party member or an NPC) I see no reason why said healer would not act to heal the victim. After all, from an external perspective your character suddenly looks like a violent murderer in the healer's eyes. If there's a good reason for the mission and it has to be completed in full view of others, then convince them to assist. This sounds like a hard mission but I do not, as a GM, feel beholden to make such a difficult mission easier by compromising other players' characters or my own interpretation of Evil.
I have already noted that I fully support finding creative solutions to solve missions, so I'm perfectly fine with that. But I'm not going to, for some reason, have otherwise civilized people suddenly look the other way if your character (apparently randomly) goes up and tries to kill someone without provocation. Doing so simply because "it's a faction mission" makes these missions "world breakers" in terms of immersion and storytelling. I don't favor that approach and won't use it generally. Faction missions do not change the reality of the game world to allow favorable completion. If a character needs to sneak off and do stuff, there are mechanics to allow this. Use Bluff, Stealth, or other relevant skills and sneak away. Not playing a character with these skills? Then you need to find another way to complete the mission. Faction missions are not guaranteed. If they were, each scenario would simply increase Prestige automatically without criteria for success.
...you shouldn't even allow them to know you're a member of a faction. You should be publicly denying that your faction even exists.Wait, what? I know sometimes there are individual faction missions that say "make sure none of your companions see you do X", but I don't remember any blanket statements about keeping factions secret. Was this new to the 4.0 Guide or something?
From the PFS Guide:
Faction Secrecy
Most loyal faction members keep their alliances to themselves, sharing faction-related missions and information only with other members of their faction.
Not specifically saying you deny your faction exists, but definitely encouraging secrecy in all assignments and in your specific affiliation. If a character is coming up to every party and proclaiming, "Hey all, I'm Cheliax and proud!" that character is creating problems that Cheliax doesn't want to deal with...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
From the PFS Guide:
Not specifically saying you deny your faction exists, but definitely encouraging secrecy in all assignments and in your specific affiliation. If a character is coming up to every party and proclaiming, "Hey all, I'm Cheliax and proud!" that character is creating problems that Cheliax doesn't want to deal with...Faction Secrecy
Most loyal faction members keep their alliances to themselves, sharing faction-related missions and information only with other members of their faction.
....Oops.
Locally, we've had people openly ask for assistance when the mission didn't imply a need for secrecy:
"Hey, could you guys all look out for [NPC]? I need to find out if he's alright."
"Hey, could you help me find [item]? My boss wanted me to look for it and I can't seem to find it." (One time it took every single PC searching the same area to eventually find the item.}
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don´t think it´s a problem to not be totally secret about every aspect of a faction mission, but you should be secret about the fact that it is a faction mission... I.e. if you can conceal tracking down Mr. X as somehow being related to the main PFS mission, then why not be open about it. You just may not reveal all the details, or your ultimate aims, etc.
|
|
Blazej,
You seem to be assuming I'm granting Evil marks, branding entire faction missions as Evil, and going out of my way to prevent characters from completing their faction missions. I haven't said anything of the sort (there are other folks discussing this, and other threads). I'll follow whatever the campaign management determines in that regard. At present I've never had occasion to "mark a sheet" or any such thing because no player has ever found my judgment of a situation unreasonable, and as such no player has ever committed a known Evil act when other options exist. This is, of course, outside Evil campaigns (which I have both played in and GM'd).
I have no idea what you are doing (although somethings have indicated that you are purposefully intent on going out of your way to prevent characters from completing their faction missions, more on that in the later section), but people in this thread have said that they specifically threatened to do just this. Telling players they can either get their PA or get an evil mark with no other option.
I'm not basing my judgments on my morality, but rather on my interpretation of the rules of the game. Apparently some folks here don't believe this, but it's true. If I judged things based on my own morality I'd be breaking the rules of the game. Folks keep saying it seems like I'd oppose them at every step, but I've never said any such thing. I've specifically noted that I use the rules of the game to define Evil. If I sit at a table with players that obviously have darker leanings, I freely inform them of my rules interpretations. I don't spring it on anyone as a surprise. I do the exact same thing with pious players that want to label everything against their own personal code "evil" and tell them I won't support that view. Is there something I've said somewhere that implies I'll ambush players with my views?
Yes. Where you said that you didn't want to define the line that can be crossed.
If that results in players playing "less Evil" for fear of not knowing where I draw the line, I'm okay with that. Evil, after all, is not an acceptable alignment for PFS.
That sounds like you are making them guess what you think is going to be evil in the middle of the scenario and not something you effectively relay when they get to your table.
I'm not familiar with the faction mission you reference, but in that case it most certainly sounds to me like the player needs to ensure the character's actions stay secret from other characters (note, I don't allow the other players to assume knowledge of the mission the characters don't have). If your character actually (seemingly to others) randomly attacks a person in sight of, for instance, a known benevolent healer (whether that healer is a party member or an NPC) I see no reason why said healer would not act to heal the victim. After all, from an external perspective your character suddenly looks like a violent murderer in the healer's eyes. If there's a good reason for the mission and it has to be completed in full view of others, then convince them to assist. This sounds like a hard mission but I do not, as a GM, feel beholden to make such a difficult mission easier by compromising other players' characters or my own interpretation of Evil.
Yes. You are not familiar with the scenario, so you have no idea when you are making your comments here. If you want to read the scenario yourself it is 2-01, "Before The Dawn Part I: The Bloodcove Disguise."
I am telling you however that a healers interference doesn't make the faction mission hard. It makes it impossible. This isn't something you can hide from the party while completing your mission. This is something as a GM that you can stop without compromising other players' characters or my own interpretation of Evil but you seem to refuse to. This is the reason why I think you are going out of your way to prevent characters from completing their factions missions, because you give approval for any character that wants to do so.
I'm not saying that you should guarantee faction missions, but having characters purposefully kill the person you are trying to save or save the person you are suppose to kill is not the assumed state of the society when there is no PvP or Bullying allowed.
Edit: And there is the question that I still don't think has ever been really answered. If a character can use his morality to stop and interfere from another player's faction missions, why can't another character similarly use their sense of right and wrong to direct themselves to devote themselves to make sure every other faction doesn't complete their own? In which case, doesn't that rip apart the very idea that this group of random adventurers are going to work together?
I have no idea what you are doing (although somethings have indicated that you are purposefully intent on going out of your way to prevent characters from completing their faction missions, more on that in the later section), but people in this thread have said that they specifically threatened to do just this. Telling players they can either get their PA or get an evil mark with no other option.
Okay, so we're clear that this is other people, not me. I can't control what other GMs do.
Yes. Where you said that you didn't want to define the line that can be crossed.
That sounds like you are making them guess what you think is going to be evil in the middle of the scenario and not something you effectively relay when they get to your table.
That's not an ambush in my view. I'm not lurking in wait for the player to slip up and then whack him with the Evil hammer if that's how you took it. I specifically just stated I'd tell those with morally gray characters my general views up front. That's not an ambush. And I do truly see it as beneficial if they then curb back acts that might be judged Evil--it makes the overall table go smoother. Evil is not an acceptable "norm" in PFS and as noted over on the other thread this is supposed to be a PG-13 game. Players looking to push that envelope to bursting, in my experience, are looking for trouble rather than just trying to play their character. That's not helpful in organized play.
Yes. You are not familiar with the scenario, so you have no idea when you are making your comments here. If you want to read the scenario yourself it is 2-01, "Before The Dawn Part I: The Bloodcove Disguise."
I am telling you however that a healers interference doesn't make the faction mission hard. It makes it impossible. This isn't something you can hide from the party while completing your mission. This is something as a GM that you can stop without compromising other players' characters or my own interpretation of Evil but you seem to refuse to. This is the reason why I think you are going out of your way to prevent characters from completing their factions missions, because you give approval for any character that wants to do so.
I'm not saying that you should guarantee faction missions, but having characters purposefully kill the person you are trying to save or save the person you are suppose to kill is not the assumed state of the society when there is no PvP or Bullying allowed.
Note that you sound a bit confrontational/irritated here. I'm not certain why, as I clearly stated I'm not familiar with the scenario and so had to base my earlier response from a guess. If you'd like to buy me the scenario, I'll be happy to read it...
Knowing the name, I can now say I've played that scenario with my Good gnome alchemist. I don't recall this coming up, so we must not have had anyone from the relevant faction. I'm not sure why you say I "refuse" to do anything as I still don't know the specifics of this mission and so cannot make a judgment as to what I would have done. Until you can tell me otherwise, it sounds like this mission requires what amounts to any witness as a random killing. Other characters have a right to interfere in a random killing (they can assume, for instance, that the character involved is under a spell of some sort). Give me more information or I can't really say much more than I've said.
I say again, being on a faction mission does not give characters free reign to do anything they want. If you can give me something more to go on, maybe I can say more. There is no "assumed state" of PFS with regard to faction missions, PvP, and Bullying beyond characters not killing one another and dysfunctional players not interrupting the game. The GM is charged with ensuring both, and I've consistently done that through all my involvement in organized play (dating back to the founding of Living Greyhawk). I've even received documented accolades for my GMing skills. As such, I'm pretty comfortable in my current position being one that ensures maximum enjoyment for players at my table.
And there is the question that I still don't think has ever been really answered. If a character can use his morality to stop and interfere from another player's faction missions, why can't another character similarly use their sense of right and wrong to direct themselves to devote themselves to make sure every other faction doesn't complete their own? In which case, doesn't that rip apart the very idea that this group of random adventurers are going to work together?
See above regarding mission and faction secrecy. If players and characters are appropriately guarding their missions, I'm not clear how this theoretical character is going to know everyone else's business? If said character disagrees with a character for any reason, faction related or not, he is free to challenge the other character so long as this doesn't escalate to violence (which is what actually violates the PvP clause by the way, not any and every little intra-party disagreement).
|
|
That's not an ambush in my view. I'm not lurking in wait for the player to slip up and then whack him with the Evil hammer if that's how you took it. I specifically just stated I'd tell those with morally gray characters my general views up front. That's not an ambush. And I do truly see it as beneficial if they then curb back acts that might be judged Evil--it makes the overall table go smoother. Evil is not an acceptable "norm" in PFS and as noted over on the other thread this is supposed to be a PG-13 game. Players looking to push that envelope to bursting, in my experience, are looking for trouble rather than just trying to play their character. That's not helpful in organized play.
I'm not talking about morally gray characters though. I am talking about a player who is playing a good character who believes that the action they are committing is legitimate and not good being surprised mid-scenario when they find out the GM thinks killing murderers is evil.
Note that you sound a bit confrontational/irritated here. I'm not certain why, as I clearly stated I'm not familiar with the scenario and so had to base my earlier response from a guess. If you'd like to buy me the scenario, I'll be happy to read it...
I was a honestly a bit irritated by your response because it seemed like without any knowledge of the scenario yourself, you seemed to ignore inconvenient parts of my explanation in your response (I stated that it was hard without interference and practically impossible with another PC working against you. In your response, you changed this so that it was merely hard with someone interfering.) What I saw was that you knew nothing about the scenario except what I told you, then you discarded stuff that I told you just so you didn't have to admit that if you were running the scenario, you would likely not so much as bat an eye when another PC foils their faction mission.
Edit: I am very passionate about this really because the idea of players doing all they can to foil other character's missions seems like the least fun scenario that I will ever play in. It is a situation that I never would ever thought a GM actually putting their players in. So this just feels incredibly arbitrary and random for a GM to do to their players for absolutely no gain in fun.
Edit 2: Also it doesn't help that in this thread, when I was talking about completing faction missions to kill unrepentant murderers, posters responded with claims that I therefore seemed to be siding with characters that fireball orphanages.
That is the very issue I have. It seems like you and other GMs are deciding to increase the difficulty of certain faction mission to be "impossible" or "cause for your character's removal from the society play." There wasn't one word in your response to make me think that you would allow that character to complete their faction mission (either by modifying the adventure, alerting the other PC, or absolutely anything else). Everything in there was about allowing that other character stop the character's just faction mission and nothing was about letting the character in any way complete it.
I'm not going to buy you the scenario just so you can read up on it. Especially since I don't want to give any incentive for a player to have to deal with that situation if and when you run it
I say again, being a faction mission does not give characters free reign to do anything they want.
And I'm not saying it does. However, being a faction mission, the GM should make it so there is a clear and stated possible avenue where they can complete their mission without you giving permission.
The GM is charged with ensuring both, and I've consistently done that through all my involvement in organized play (dating back to the founding of Living Greyhawk). I've even received documented accolades for my GMing skills. As such, I'm pretty comfortable in my current position being one that ensures maximum enjoyment for players at my table.
I haven't played in your games though. I'm not sure Living Greyhawk puts GMs into this position or not. All I see here indicates that in 90% games I would be a player for you, that I would have a fine and great time. Then in one game I will be trying to sadly do my duty of making sure an unrepentant murderer doesn't do any more harm to others turns into making it seem I'm the evil monster with gray morals with no sense of compassion. Those 90% record for great games will not make up for the fact that I will never want to be a player for any faction at your tables ever again.
This is not about me playing a dark, brooding over the top pretty much evil character in the Pathfinder Society. This is about my good character doing he thinks is right and justly given job is and the game breaking into an argument over whether killing murderers is evil action.
See above regarding mission and faction secrecy. If players and characters are appropriately guarding their missions, I'm not clear how this theoretical character is going to know everyone else's business? If said character disagrees with a character for any reason, faction related or not, he is free to challenge the other character so long as this doesn't escalate to violence (which is what actually violates the PvP clause by the way, not any and every little intra-party disagreement).
That is a reasonable stance and I think that would work fine in some groups. I disagree though, I think that it is pressing into breaking the rules of the society and if allowed would turn the game in general (at Cons primarily) into more about (metaphorically) backstabbing your teammates as you attempt to claim as much rewards for yourself while denying them to others.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Also it doesn't help that in this thread, when I was talking about completing faction missions to kill unrepentant murderers, posters responded with claims that I therefore seemed to be siding with characters that fireball orphanages.
Wait, all this time I thought you were one of us, whose side are you on anyways?
I'm not talking about morally gray characters though. I am talking about a player who is playing a good character who believes that the action they are committing is legitimate and not good being surprised mid-scenario when they find out the GM thinks killing murderers is evil.
.
.
.
I was a honestly a bit irritated by your response because it seemed like without any knowledge of the scenario yourself, you seemed to ignore inconvenient parts of my explanation in your response (I stated that it was hard without interference and practically impossible with another PC working against you. In your response, you changed this so that it was merely hard with someone interfering.) What I saw was that you knew nothing about the scenario except what I told you, then you discarded stuff that I told you just so you didn't have to admit that if you were running the scenario, you would likely not so much as bat an eye when another PC foils their faction mission.Edit: I am very passionate about this really because the idea of players doing all they can to foil other character's missions seems like the least fun scenario that I will ever play in. It is a situation that I never would ever thought a GM actually putting their players in. So this just feels incredibly arbitrary and random for a GM to do to their players for absolutely no gain in fun.
Edit 2: Also it doesn't help that in this thread, when I was talking about completing faction missions to kill unrepentant murderers, posters responded with claims that I therefore seemed to be siding with characters that fireball orphanages.
That is the very issue I have. It seems like you and other GMs are deciding to increase the difficulty of certain faction mission to be "impossible" or "cause for your character's removal from the society play." There wasn't one word in your response to make me think that you would allow that character to complete their faction mission (either by modifying the adventure, alerting the other PC, or absolutely anything else). Everything in there was about allowing that other character stop the character's just faction mission and nothing was about letting the character in any way complete it.
I'm not going to buy you the scenario just so you can read up on it. Especially since I don't want to give any incentive for a player to have to deal with that situation if and when you run it
.
.
.
And I'm not saying it does. However, being a faction mission, the GM should make it so there is a clear and stated possible avenue where they can complete their mission without you giving permission.
.
.
.
I haven't played in your games though. I'm not sure Living Greyhawk puts GMs into this position or not. All I see here indicates that in 90% games I would be a player for you, that I would have a fine and great time. Then in one game I will be trying to sadly do my duty of making sure an unrepentant murderer doesn't do any more harm to others turns into making it seem I'm the evil monster with gray morals with no sense of compassion. Those 90% record for great games will not make up for the fact that I will never want to be a player for any faction at your tables ever again.This is not about me playing a dark, brooding over the top pretty much evil character in the Pathfinder Society. This is about my good character doing he thinks is right and justly given job is and the game breaking into an argument over whether killing murderers is evil action.
.
.
.That is a reasonable stance and I think that would work fine in some groups. I disagree though, I think that it is pressing into breaking the rules of the society and if allowed would turn the game in general (at Cons primarily) into more about (metaphorically) backstabbing your teammates as you attempt to claim as much rewards for yourself while denying them to others.
For killing murderers, if the character walked up to the target, said "Hi, I'd like to buy some..." and then stabbed the guy in the face then it's pretty hard to distinguish the character from the murderer. For the scenario you describe, I still can't say much one way or another about it in context of the issue being discussed in this thread (i.e. the right of Good characters to interfere in the actions of others when an action is deemed Evil) because I don't have the context. I've said multiple times that I believe in working with players to find reasonable solutions to in-game problems when feasible. I've even proposed that GMs should have free hand to modify faction missions when necessary to ensure players can properly execute the mission (see my example of a Silver Crusader given an older incompatible Andoran mission). My response was specifically to the action you described--seeming to kill an NPC at random with no explanation to others. I'm not looking to destroy your faction mission, I'm looking for you to take some reasonable action in order to fulfill said mission and holding firm that "it's a faction mission, so I can just kill him" is not sufficient. If I, as the GM, find the action you propose Evil then you as the player need to find another way. If the mission is something that is, in my estimation, unreasonable, then I would have a means for you to do so. I've said that earlier, and often.
I guess the major hang up for some folks is I do tend to play "realistically" in some ways. Not in the sense that the game needs to conform to our reality, but rather that the game and campaign setting have internal consistency. I see no reason to qualify one guy dispassionately killing another guy murder while in the same game considering a Pathfinder doing so to be "just doing his job." Indeed, it's not the Pathfinder's job at all to go about killing random people--the Pathfinders job is to explorer and report. It really comes back around to my call earlier--write better faction missions.
|
|
I think though that other Pathfinders should trust that you know what you are doing. That you did not just stab a guy in the face for absolutely no reason. If you the other characters don't trust your actions then those characters shouldn't be in the same party. If I seem to have have just attacked a random stranger for no apparent reason, you need to trust that I have a very good reason for it. If I didn't, I almost certainly wouldn't be here with you in the Pathfinder Society right now.
I don't really think that the actions behind the referenced Andoran faction mission is really that incompatible with the Silver Crusaders. While the names need to be changed, as a group emulating the ideals of silver dragons, I see a silver dragon killing an unrepentant evil foe on the spot rather than flying them to the nearest prison.
It is my opinion though that other Pathfinders should at least trust that you know what you are doing. That you did not just stab a guy in the face for absolutely no reason. If you the other characters don't trust your actions then those characters shouldn't be in the same party. If I seem to have have just attacked a random stranger for no apparent reason, you need to trust that I have a very good reason for it. If I didn't, I almost certainly wouldn't be here with you in the Pathfinder Society right now.
I don't really think that the actions behind the referenced Andoran faction mission is really that incompatible with the Silver Crusaders. While the names need to be changed, as a group emulating the ideals of silver dragons, I see a silver dragon killing an unrepentant evil foe on the spot rather than flying them to the nearest prison.
That is a strange opinion, to me, when it is known that Pathfinders don't necessarily support one another at all times. This is written into the source material in Seeker of Secrets, and it's clear that the factions are actively working against one another in order to gain power. So no, I can't see everyone being Pathfinders in and of itself being enough to establish that basis of trust. Trust is established based on action, generally, especially if you are with a group of people you just met. Open violence against one another is prohibited. Doing everything you can to help out each other? No, I don't see that required anywhere. If this was supposed to be a game of mutual cooperation and trust, everyone would just be in the same faction.
For the Silver Crusade faction missions, I basically expect them to conform to what a paladin would reasonably do, especially as "Of all the dragons, silvers are the most courageous, holding themselves to a chivalrous code to help the weak, defeat evil, and behave in an honorable manner." Silver dragons are Lawful Good. While they seek to defeat evil (and note it's "defeat" rather than destroy, eradicate, etc.--defeat does not specifically mean killing every Evil target), they do so in an honorable manner. They are not going to stoop to the same methods Chaotic and Evil use in order to achieve their goals. The module's suggestion to arrange an "accident" after combat to ensure death is in no way honorable. Other's suggestions to kill the target after he is rendered helpless are also not honorable based on my understanding of honor. Yes, I know this introduces yet another subjective debate on what is honorable...yet more subjective territory for GMs to navigate.
|
|
That is a strange opinion, to me, when it is known that Pathfinders don't necessarily support one another at all times. This is written into the source material in Seeker of Secrets, and it's clear that the factions are actively working against one another in order to gain power. So no, I can't see everyone being Pathfinders in and of itself being enough to establish that basis of trust. Trust is established based on action, generally, especially if you are with a group of people you just met. Open violence against one another is prohibited. Doing everything you can to help out each other? No, I don't see that required anywhere. If this was supposed to be a game of mutual cooperation and trust, everyone would just be in the same faction.
Factions are working against each other. The party members are not. If one of the party members gets injured in battle, it has always been the case that a healer in the party tended and treated their wounds even if they didn't belong to the same faction.
If the LG paladin gets surrounded by the horde of enemies, the CN rogue almost certainly has his back and will be helping the paladin with good fight (even if one is from Silver Crusade and the other is from Scarnazi).
In battle, you know that your party is going to work with you and not just run off and betray you when you need them most.
As a group of adventures with different goals and dreams, all working to make sure everyone comes back home safe, I have no doubt that this is a game of mutual cooperation and trust.
For the Silver Crusade faction missions, I basically expect them to conform to what a paladin would reasonably do, especially as "Of all the dragons, silvers are the most courageous, holding themselves to a chivalrous code to help the weak, defeat evil, and behave in an honorable manner." Silver dragons are Lawful Good. While they seek to defeat evil (and note it's "defeat" rather than destroy, eradicate,...
Just because something isn't really honorable, doesn't make it so a paladin can't participate. Wars and the deaths that come from them are certainly not terribly honorable affairs, but that doesn't mean that the soldiers and leaders can't fight them honorably. Similarly, I don't see executions as honorable affairs, but I do believe you can perform an execution with some honor and respect.
Else, for that situation in the scenario in question, there would be no honorable way out, because all paths that I see after capture lead to that person's rapid death. There are few groups that would hold him for committing a crime that they care about, without also having been so harmed by him that they wouldn't call for his death. One could give him the choice, but I don't see how they make it out (which is why I asked Chris before how the players captured him, but didn't get the PA).
Factions are working against each other. The party members are not. If one of the party members gets injured in battle, it has always been the case that a healer in the party tended and treated their wounds even if they didn't belong to the same faction.
If the LG paladin gets surrounded by the horde of enemies, the CN rogue almost certainly has his back and will be helping the paladin with good fight (even if one is from Silver Crusade and the other is from Scarnazi).
In battle, you know that your party is going to work with you and not just run off and betray you when you need them most.
As a group of adventures with different goals and dreams, all working to make sure everyone comes back home safe, I have no doubt that this is a game of mutual cooperation and trust.
Sure, they are all working together, building trust, and observing each others' actions. So long as those actions remain consistent, trust grows. The moment one character suddenly stabs a random guy in the face, that new-built trust is in question at best, and totally gone at worst. If my character just witnessed this and the only explanation is "I can't tell you why I stabbed him, just trust me!" then my character immediately starts wondering when it will be his turn for the face stabbing. If he's a healer, he also heals the guy so that the local law enforcement doesn't throw everyone in jail and thus hinder the actual Pathfinder-assigned mission. If it's a reasonable action, explain it reasonably. If it can't be explained, sure as heck don't do it in front of a bunch of basically strangers.
Just because something isn't really honorable, doesn't make it so a paladin can't participate. Wars and the deaths that come from them are certainly not terribly honorable affairs, but that doesn't mean that the soldiers and leaders can't fight them honorably. Similarly, I don't see executions as honorable affairs, but I do believe you can perform an execution with some honor and respect.
Else, for that situation in the scenario in question, there would be no honorable way out, because all paths that I see after capture lead to that person's rapid death. There are few groups that would hold him for committing a crime that they care about, without also having been so harmed by him that they wouldn't call for his death. One could give him the choice, but I don't see how they make it out (which is why I asked Chris before how the players captured him, but didn't get the PA).
I've never said paladins can't fight, or that all killing is Evil (see earlier posts on killing). There is a Lawful Good organization operating in the city in question that can readily take charge of an accused criminal. That is the appropriate path for a paladin to take, not "I'm not a legal authority here, but I'm going to execute you anyway." Paladins don't take the easy way out.
Okay, lets play the scenario game:
Paladin Paul is out on mission with Sorcerer Steve. In the course of their adventure, Villain Vanessa has sent 10 thugs to kill these two heroes, disguised herself as Friendly Fiona (a pathfinder) and attacked the town, in an effort to defame the organization, and channeled negative energy through a holy symbol of Zon-Kuthon to hurt the party. After a difficult battle against Vanessa and her minions, Paul and Steve find a note from Vanessa's even more evil Boss, Bob. This note gives a clear and present danger timeline to Steve and Paul, that they must hurry to stop Bob from doing his BBEG thing.
At this point, Steve tries to Coup-de-Grace Vanessa as the party heals itself up for the upcoming last fight. Suddenly, Paul springs to action, stopping Steve from killing a murderous and treacherous monster, protecting her life (that nobody did a heal check to stabilize previously) because "good guys respect life."
If I were running at this table, I would lay into the player of Paul. Not only is he acting in obvious discord with his previous apathy, he is instigating a situation that puts players against each other. The guy playing Paul totally ignored Vanessa's health and well being up until that point, he even took the time to loot her body. Steve may be trying to complete a faction mission, he may just be covering the party from a rescue and return pincer attack. This isn't an action that should need to be hidden from a normal adventuring party. Obviously, a paladin needs a little extra attention, and that's why Steve waited a good ten minutes to make sure that Paul had forgotten about Vanessa. But because the player suddenly realizes that he failed to save a murderous [expletive removed for ratings reasons] from her just reward, he wants to somehow impede the fair and reasonable actions of another player.
This is the scenario that I am complaining about.
----
Scenario 2:
Steve the sorcerer walks into a shop and casts sleep on the shopkeeper, then walks around the counter and slits the shopkeep's throat. Paul says, "hold the door! I won't let that happen"
If this were my table, I'd look at Steve's player and say "Really? Are you stupid or just CE? Next time, use some tact or play a sane character. I'm not going to let your character do that with such obvious opposition."
----
Straw man arguments are easy to make, see. The real meat of this particular post, however, is in the disruptive nature of the paladin in the first scenario.
Cries against 'evil' actions like the one done by Steve in the first scenario are not savvy to the setting, genre, or actual consequences of taking prisoners. And I encourage GMs to consider the ramifications of such 'good' behavior as saving all lives. Trust me, as someone who played through the first Kingmaker module with a total of 2 humanoid kills, the cost of mercy was insane, which made the weight of the good deed itself infinitely more meaningful to us all.
I'm not saying that Steve did a good action when he killed that villain, but allowing Paul to slow or even stop the game over such a perceived crime is silly. Paul is welcome to say a short piece about not taking lives if he wants, but the game needs to move on. If Steve does it again, in plain sight, after Paul said to keep them alive, then Steve is bringing up the conflict, but the first time, its clearly Paul who starts the argument.
Also, if paladins are so intent on saving lives and whatnot, why is it that my Sczarni thug (Neutral with tendencies towards thuggery) has done more non-lethal damage in a single attack than I have seen done by all other players in total from all other games I've played in (Blood Under Absalom not counted for obvious reasons)? Yes, I have mechanical reasons to deal non-lethal sometimes, but easily half the time he hits, there isn't any additional benefit, yet he deals non-lethal anyway. He takes prisoners consistently when the rest of the party is content to leave the perhaps living, perhaps dead foes to rot or worse. Just some food for thought on this "good respects life and dignity" claim.
Scenario 1 is easy--I would have reminded the paladin (and any other Good characters) well before ten minutes had passed that they've got living people that need to be addressed. I make the Respect for Life aspect of Good very obvious to players, very often. There is no looting of bodies while people lay about bleeding to death in my games with Good characters.
Scenario 2 looks like we're agreed, so good to go.
For the overall implications of upholding this definition of Good, as noted earlier I've been GMing for a long time. I'm quite aware of the implications as well as the means by which the game can be moved along to keep the narrative flowing. Indeed, it's no problem at all to say, "Okay, you've decided to turn the villains over to the constable and they thank you for your service to the city. The next day..." When something is not directly important to the narrative of the story (especially in a time-constrained organized play session) it's perfectly acceptable to summarize the results and move on to the rest of the story. This can be done without compromising people's alignments and character concepts.
|
|
Sure, they are all working together, building trust, and observing each others' actions. So long as those actions remain consistent, trust grows. The moment one character suddenly stabs a random guy in the face, that new-built trust is in question at best, and totally gone at worst. If my character just witnessed this and the only explanation is "I can't tell you why I stabbed him, just trust me!" then my character immediately starts wondering when it will be his turn for the face stabbing. If he's a healer, he also heals the guy so that the local law enforcement doesn't throw everyone in jail and thus hinder the actual Pathfinder-assigned mission. If it's a reasonable action, explain it reasonably. If it can't be explained, sure as heck don't do it in front of a bunch of basically strangers.
Not all things can be explained reasonable. Especially in the heat of battle. All the character knows is that that if the healer treats this guy, this murderer escape and probably continue to murder, but he will also know that he was being targeted and hide so deep that they may not be able to find him before his next victim shows up. He trusts that his fellow pathfinders will not do so.
Again, if you don't trust your party, you leave. If you have to save that person, you no longer trust your party member and you can't be a member of the party anymore. You can't have a person in the group who thinks so little of his fellow party members that they believe that they may be attacked next.
I've never said paladins can't fight, or that all killing is Evil (see earlier posts on killing). There is a Lawful Good organization operating in the city in question that can readily take charge of an accused criminal. That is the appropriate path for a paladin to take, not "I'm not a legal authority here, but I'm going to execute you anyway." Paladins don't take the easy way out.
Really, it seems to me that the easy way out is to not do that dirty work yourself and hand it off to other people to do it for you. Given that organization was specifically listed as one that was going to likely execute the prisoner for his crimes.
The hard way out for the paladin to me would be to take that responsibility on yourself, rather than just passing on that task to another. It seems to me that the paladin knows what needs to be done, but refuses to do it himself, thinking that makes himself more noble.
And as for being a legal authority. That paladin just broke into a building, assaulted everyone inside, possibly killed some of their guard pets, and robbed them of everything of value. Did he have legal authority to do all of that?
Also, I found something in the Pathfinder Society Guide about this. It may have already been quoted, but I think it bears repeating.
The Society recognizes no formal bylaws, but adherence to a general code of behavior is expected of all members, and reports of activity in contrast to this
code are grounds for removal from the organization. The three most important member duties are as follows....
Cooperate: The Society places no moral obligations upon its members, so agents span all races, creeds, and motivations. At any given time, a Pathfinder lodge might house a fiend-summoning Chelaxian, an Andoren freedom fighter, an antiquities-obsessed Osirian necromancer, and a friendly Taldan raconteur. Pathfinder agents are expected to respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering
a helping hand.
Once again, interfering with the affairs of other characters is grounds for removal from the Pathfinder Society. There isn't an exception for just really thinking that the other person was wrong. This rule seems incredibly clear to me, and doesn't allow your characters to do anything to hamper the claims of your fellow party members.
Really I'm just not understanding your point on the referenced mission. Without context, it still seems to me like you are saying the character randomly (by all appearances) tries to kill someone and then says "Just trust me!" I don't think we'll get anywhere else with this particular topic without more specific details of the mission itself.
For the paladin, I'm not clear on how handing a villain over to a Lawful Good authority is supposed to be unusual, and I've previously noted my primary concern with this faction mission being the weird emphasis on killing, with no explanation of why, versus offering other reasonable paths for Good characters. I've already said I'd be offering up alternate solutions. So again, we seem to be going round and round here and I'm not sure what the purpose is.
For the by-laws you quote, for some particular reason they got thrown out the window when one faction ordered the Pathfinder to kill another Pathfinder. For some reason, it's okay to break the clause for a faction mission, but not when a paladin sees another character trying to murder random people and tries to stop him. Really? That's your defense here? It's obvious to me that there is expectation of conflict between the factions. It's written into the scenarios and factions themselves. The Silver Crusade--added because people wanted to play even more good guys!--is noted as "oppos[ing] factions who would drag the Society’s reputation through the mud in search of glory, and striv[ing] constantly to raise the morals of their fellow Pathfinders." Let me repeat that. There is a faction specifically noted as opposing other factions and trying to inspire higher morals! I'm not going to suspend that just for the party so some character can be sure his Evil plot gets executed successfully in full view of the paladin and he can get his prestige point. The Faction Secrecy section specifically notes that the Society turns its view from things so long as open hostility doesn't break out. So, if you don't want opposition then abide by the secrecy requirement...
The simple solution now to all the faction Mission problems is..
PLAY SLOW TRACK ALL THE TIME!!!!!
That way you never have to worry about completing your faction mission as long as the main mission is accomplished.