| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand where the GMs who are in favor of alignment change are coming from.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
So while I technically disagree with the GMs who want alignment change, I also deeply sympathize. lol.
Wow.
Okay. What would I do at this point?
"Excuse me table. /Look at player/ Can we talk a second?"
(Away from table...)
"Hey, I hate to say it, but you are really disrupting the table. You are playing a character who is supposed to be lawful, but clearly isn't. You are committing blatantly evil acts which while not in themselves are not against society rules, are clearly disruptive to the mission that your fellow Pathfinders are attempting to complete. And a quick glance at your previous chronicles indicates that you have chronicles that your character was ineligible to get."
(other player makes excuses, or gets belligerent, or something)
"I really don't have time to argue the points with you, as I've got a whole table of people who have put aside 4-5 hours to have an enjoyable day. Here's the options. Choice one is that you pack up and leave the table now. You can even say you have an issue that you have to leave to take care of, and I'll play along. Or you can storm off in a fit. Either way is fine.
"Choice two is that we both go back to the table and smile, and you start playing your character in a way that isn't disruptive to the table, and we don't have to talk about this anymore. Later, I'll help you get your character sheet in order with what valid chronicles you have. If you select this choice, and keep being disruptive, I'll remove you from the table in a much more obvious way."
"Which of these would you like to choose?"
|
Stuff
That was my first session with a new (home) group, I was a PC not the GM, so it's not like I'm going to tell them how to run their sessions. My idea of fun might not be theirs. I have to assume they like the game like this, otherwise the GM would have said something. So yes, I already said stuff to them (like you mentioned), but rather than make it me vs the table (they're friends), I'd rather just be easy going, determine it's not my playing style, and move on.
I just decided to share that experience with everyone because I thought it was a pretty good example of how a PCs alignment made no sense whatsoever.
StuffThat was my first session with a new (home) group, I was a PC not the GM, so it's not like I'm going to tell them how to run their sessions. My idea of fun might not be theirs. I have to assume they like the game like this, otherwise the GM would have said something. So yes, I already said stuff to them (like you mentioned), but rather than make it me vs the table (they're friends), I'd rather just be easy going, determine it's not my playing style, and move on.
I just decided to share that experience with everyone because I thought it was a pretty good example of how a PCs alignment made no sense whatsoever.
Ah. I thought you were DM in this example. Yes, as a player, it's a case of "Is this the game I want to be in?" If not - find a new game.
Fozzy, what does a PFS GM do when your discussion doesn't work?
And when you encounter the player at multiple locations?
Good question.
Address the matter to PFS staff. Barring that:
"I'm sorry, but based on your past behavior, I really can't seat you at my table."
or, if you are in a generous mood:
"I know you've had issues at my table in the past. We'll give this a try, but if you become disruptive, I want you to know now that I will remove you from my table."
|
Erm...shouldn't you be telling us?
I thought Fozzy's post was a very good example of how to handle it, as it allows both sides to save face.
I assumed that was the official way.
I will admit, they were leading questions, but when I gave my answer earlier it prompted a lot of the anger and spin-off threads.
Earlier in the thread, I was one of the ones who stated that I believed a GM has a right to remove a character based on their actions. Jason's story is similar to some things I have encountered, and is the type of situation I was referring to. At Jason's table, you could easily deal with the player for being disruptive, but some problem players are more subtle than that in the way they derail the game.
Fozzy did give good advice, and it would work for the overwhelming majority of players.
But what about that extremely small minority of players who just won't respond to that treatment? IMO, a GM needs to be able to remove that character, just as they can remove a player for cheating.
I know that when I said a GM has a right to remove a character, I was not advocating it happen regularly, but a GM needs to be able to deal with extreme cases. Sometimes, a GM cannot just walk away like a player can.
....So while I technically disagree with the GMs who want alignment change, I also deeply sympathize. lol.
Just to clarify, what is your ´technical´ disagreement?
PFS uses PRPG rules unless otherwise specified (which isn´t done for this issue, neither in general nor for Faction Missions), and the Core Rules clearly describe Alignment as something tracked by GMs and not by players. And Mark Moreland has specifically affirmed that PFS GMs are indeed enabled to recognize alignment shifts to Evil (stemming from character actions), which would bar a character from PFS play....I don´t see the basis for ´technical´ disagreement with that, although people may not LIKE that, or feel it is ´unfair´ that Faction Missions may be Evil, and thus potentially lead to character disqualification, etc... But people may feel any number of PFS rules are unfair... That isn´t a ´technical´ disagreement, it´s a subjective one.
The only thing that is missing is any formal process for tracking ´small´ changes, and/or balancing them against strongly good acts, etc... Which goes equally for Chaotic/Lawful axis Alignment changes, which can be very relevant to specific Class abilities, yet doesn´t seem to be as much as an issue (probably because even if you lose Class Abilities you aren´t banned from PFS, and because Good/Evil sets off more hot-buttons in peoplet).
|
|
Just to clarify, what is your ´technical´ disagreement?
I don't agree with forcing alignment change in PFS. If you want to read more, read my past posts in this thread for my point of view.
Actually, we haven't gotten any official word from Mark regarding alignment and forcing alignment change (specifically regarding faction missions). Especially not in the FAQ, where that kind of information belongs.
And Mark Moreland has specifically affirmed that PFS GMs are indeed enabled to recognize alignment shifts to Evil (stemming from character actions), which would bar a character from PFS play.
First of all, he wasn't necessarily evil, the guy he killed most definitely was evil (and was talking trash about killing the town at the time). The PC was definitely not lawful though, he was f-ing crazy.
Your point however proves my point. In this guys home game (and other games he's played in since he has 3+ groups!), his GM never flinched once, everything was acceptable.
However, at my table, I would bust this guys balls and do a complete audit of his character, strip him of gear (for that scenario) that he shouldn't have, and probably talk to the coordinator about his ineligible chronicle. So what we get is inconsistency. Why is he ok at 4 other tables and not ok at my table?
I forgot to mention, he was also loud and spoke over top of the GM often, so badly I couldn't hear the GMs descriptions. We're not talking about speaking for 2-5 seconds, I'm talking about being loud for 30-60 seconds. And he kept going, totally oblivious. And he did it a few times.
With regards to faction missions, we've already beat that horse to death. I just want to hear what Mark has to say about them and alignment.
I wouldn't want a formal process for changing his alignment, even if I thought he was definitely not LG. I would nudge him towards CN (lol), penalize him if his class demanded a certain alignment, but I also found him disruptive and would nudge him towards STFU.
Erm...shouldn't you be telling us?
I thought Fozzy's post was a very good example of how to handle it, as it allows both sides to save face.
I assumed that was the official way.I will admit, they were leading questions, but when I gave my answer earlier it prompted a lot of the anger and spin-off threads.
Earlier in the thread, I was one of the ones who stated that I believed a GM has a right to remove a character based on their actions. Jason's story is similar to some things I have encountered, and is the type of situation I was referring to. At Jason's table, you could easily deal with the player for being disruptive, but some problem players are more subtle than that in the way they derail the game.
Fozzy did give good advice, and it would work for the overwhelming majority of players.
But what about that extremely small minority of players who just won't respond to that treatment? IMO, a GM needs to be able to remove that character, just as they can remove a player for cheating.
I know that when I said a GM has a right to remove a character, I was not advocating it happen regularly, but a GM needs to be able to deal with extreme cases. Sometimes, a GM cannot just walk away like a player can.
I would counter that a GM always has the right to remove a player from the table.
A GM does not have the right to remove a character from the campaign. There is no mechanism in the Guide that allows this.
If the player is disruptive enough with enough GM's, the problem will solve itself, as that player will be unable to find a GM that will even seat him.
|
If the player is disruptive enough with enough GM's, the problem will solve itself, as that player will be unable to find a GM that will even seat him.
Or players that will put up with him.
Which brings up an interesting variant of the discussion;
Can/should players report a problem player, or have them blackballed?
Not leave it up to the GM, who may not have the confidence to initiate a potentially confrontational situation. Or at least make it known to the GM that they will back him up, if it needs VC/coordinator intervention?
Can/should their characters report the offending character to the authorities, and/or their superiors?
The PCs get debriefed after each mission, though this tends to get abstracted, in the flurry of Chronicle Sheet updating.
Is there any reason a player couldn't state that they are reporting the problem PC to the NPC VC?
Eg; "Our mission was compromised by PC X, who, suddenly, and without warning, stabbed a bystander in broad daylight, in the middle of the marketplace, and forced us to spend the rest of the day evading the authorities. I would respectfully ask that no other Lodge members be put in that situation again."
Make it known on the offender's Chronicle sheet, that there are several players who do not wish to be seated with that player in the future?
Or can/should they arrange an 'accident' for the offending PC (not necessarily death, could include arranging for them to be caught red-handed and carted off to jail/rubber room)?
|
If the player is disruptive enough with enough GM's, the problem will solve itself, as that player will be unable to find a GM that will even seat him.Or players that will put up with him.
Which brings up an interesting variant of the discussion;
Can/should players report a problem player, or have them blackballed?
Can/should their characters report the offending character to the authorities, and/or their superiors?Or can/should they arrange an 'accident' for the offending PC (not necessarily death, could include arranging for them to be caught red-handed and carted off to jail/rubber room)?
In the past, I've reported problem players (and on one unfortunate night, a gm) to the local venture captain. The situations were resolved, and it was done within the rules. Not that the idea of characters taking rogue pathfinders and giving them cement shoes doesn't hold its own charm....
Just so people who are talking the pros and cons of permanent character removal from play, since no else may have seen this post from Mark in the thread I linked to a few days ago, here is his reply related to this:
We will be standardizing the penalties for being sold into slavery, captured, or otherwise taken out of play. It's on the to-do list.Hey Mark,
I am necroing this thread to see if this is still on the to-do list or if it has been dropped.
It's on the todo list, and unfortunately got overlooked when we were doing the major revisions to the Guide. I'm marking it as a FAQ so it stays on the radar.
As for this thread, I'll be reexamining a lot of the discussion here for consideration of codifying in the campaign documents.
|
|
In the past, I've reported problem players (and on one unfortunate night, a gm) to the local venture captain. The situations were resolved, and it was done within the rules. Not that the idea of characters taking rogue pathfinders and giving them cement shoes doesn't hold its own charm....
Indeed it doesn't....
I support the general intent of the 'no PvP' rule, in that a player should not be coming to the table with the goal of causing disruption, carrying over some (real or perceived) vendetta between players or their PCs, should not be abusing the meta-knowledge that every PC is a member of a faction*, following their rivals around, trying to interfere with apparently innocuous activities such as message drops and short conversations with NPCs.**
But conversely, players should take responsibility for their own actions, and how they will be perceived, not just by the other PCs, but by NPC witnesses and authorities.
There doesn't need to be a paladin in the group, or a member of Andoran/Silver Crusade, 'cramping your style', before you rein in your excesses.
At some point, it has to be recognised that one PC's blatant disregard for morals, ethics and secrecy, is not only risking the completion of the official mission, but could result in everyone else being attacked by witnesses/authorities, arrested, executed as accessories, and the reputation of the Pathfinders dragged into the mud.
At which point, it requires intervention by the other PCs, both to salve their own consciences, and to protect the Society.
In cases like that, I can't see the Decemvirate punishing the 'party-pooper' PCs, rather the opposite.
*Just because your PC is a member of a faction, and knows other factions exist, doesn't mean he knows every PC he meets is a member of one of the 10 factions, unless that PC is daft enough to make it obvious.
** Which is the original intent of this thread; we can still have evil factions, plotting their evil plots, so long as they reserve the most morally abhorrent missions for NPCs to carry out; NPCs who are beyond any hope of redemption. PC members of these factions represent outer circle members, deemed to have insufficient dedication to be trusted with the true aims of the faction, but who can be given simpler tasks such as courier work, exploration reports, stakeouts, and petty theft, which all allow a measure of plausible deniability.
I.e., you don't send Moneypenny to perform a 'double-O' assassination.
|
I understand where the GMs who are in favor of alignment change are coming from.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
So while I technically disagree with the GMs who want alignment change, I also deeply sympathize. lol.
This is more of an issue of roleplaying in a way that, in most situations, would be considered by some as deeply offensive. Being vulgar would probobly be classified in the "don't be a jerk" category. When we play, we make sure we tone what we say to the level of the people at the table. When there is someone young, we make sure we say no swear words and nothing dirty.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like this answer. I would answer the same.
"I know you've had issues at my table in the past. We'll give this a try, but if you become disruptive, I want you to know now that I will remove you from my table."
This is likely the best way to handle this IMO. This doesn't require rules update from Mark. GM's set the guideline for acceptable behavior at a table.
My concern if disruptive players are not dealt with sooner rather than later how many players do you lose of this?
I have had to pull two people to the side so far and one of them cost my group about 3-4 players before he was just not invited back to the store.
Alignment has always been a sticky issue as it deals with ethics. I rather management this from the perceptive of how much disruption a player causes at a table.
Just to clarify, what is your ´technical´ disagreement?I don't agree with forcing alignment change in PFS. If you want to read more, read my past posts in this thread for my point of view.
Actually, we haven't gotten any official word from Mark regarding alignment and forcing alignment change (specifically regarding faction missions). Especially not in the FAQ, where that kind of information belongs.
Well... It sounds like you are disagreeing with Mark Moreland`s guideline on this, then. He specifically said that if a PC `killed every NPC in the Puddles for no good reason` they would certainly shift to an Evil alignment, and be barred from PFS play. Just like there is no PFS EXCEPTION to the Core Rules which state that the GM tracks alignment, there is no PFS EXCEPTION that says actions stemming from Faction Missions are treated differently than other actions re: Alignment repurcussions, so if a Faction Mission called for you to murder everybody in the Puddles, that would still have the outcome Mark described.
And Mark Moreland has specifically affirmed that PFS GMs are indeed enabled to recognize alignment shifts to Evil (stemming from character actions), which would bar a character from PFS play.First of all, he wasn't necessarily evil, the guy he killed most definitely was evil (and was talking trash about killing the town at the time). The PC was definitely not lawful though, he was f-ing crazy.
Mark Moreland didn`t respond to that specific case, he made up an extreme example to show that clear-cut strongly Evil actions CAN and SHOULD shift PC`s Alignment to Evil. He used an over the top example to evade all gray areas, e.g. didn`t specify how to deal with smaller evils that may not shift alignment just based on 1 act, but the basic paradigm that PC actions CAN cause their alignment to be shifted (adjudicated by the GM) was specifically affirmed by him. Although since he never postulated any specific `one act Alignment shift` requirement, and simply depended on the concept that the GM is the final arbitrator of Alignment tracking, if a GM is aware of a pattern of acts which in total justify an Alignment shift, the same result should be expected... There just doesn`t happen to be any formal procedure for tracking those `sub-alignment shifts` so unless a single GM has witnessed enough of these smaller Evil acts in their own games, and/or pays heed to notes from other GMs indicating such acts (written on character sheets by their own initiative, since that`s not a required thing to track), such smaller, but consistent Evil, may be over-looked... That doesn`t mean Evil acts shouldn`t shift Alignment though, it just means the system isn`t set up to keep track of that as well.
So your stance ¨I don't agree with forcing alignment change in PFS¨ directly contradicts his ruling that alignment SHOULD be `force changed` and PCs retired if they thusly become Evil... I don`t think you actually have a technical disagreement with that, rather you don`t like it or think it`s problematic/unfair re: Faction Missions, etc.
With regards to faction missions, we've already beat that horse to death. I just want to hear what Mark has to say about them and alignment.
Well, he`s specifically affirmed that GM`s can and should change Alignment when that is justified. And there`s nothing saying that Faction Missions are any different, so they are just as subject to the rules of the game as everything else... No different than the rules for what rolls are auto-success on Natural 20`s. Maybe he could chime in about meta-game balance and fairness re: Faction Missions and Alignment, but on a technical basis there is no vagaries: Faction Missions are subject to the same rules as everything else.
I wouldn't want a formal process for changing his alignment, even if I thought he was definitely not LG. I would nudge him towards CN (lol), penalize him if his class demanded a certain alignment, but I also found him disruptive and would nudge him towards...
And this just sounds like mixing up player/character issues. Note that a player portraying a character committing Evil Acts does NOT need to be disruptive to the game as a whole, or problematic to the other players. Maybe it would provoke inter-character conflict (but so can other stuff that adds more flavor to the game, and isn`t a game-ending problem), but with a party of CN PC`s there may very well be ZERO inter-party issues.
I also don`t get how you can dispute the notion of adjusting Aligment to Evil, yet you are OK with adjusting it to Chaotic Neutral. Apparently you find fairness issues with disqualifying PCs from the game (again, directly contradicting Mark Moreland`s stance that PC acts can and should the GM to shift the Alignment to Evil and disqualify the character from play), but do you honestly think there is any TECHNICAL basis for that?, when PFS doesn`t diverge from the Core Rules in this aspect at all? How did Evil NPCs in the modules ever become Evil in the first place, if Evil Acts don`t lead to Evil Alignment?
|
|
I think when it comes right down to it, it's hard to make a strict rule on removing a character from play, because we can't know every time if the player is just a jerk or if that person is just really having a bad day and trying to work through some really bad stuff.
So James has a very good point.
When it comes down to it, any GM has a right to remove a player from their table for:
a) Being a jerk
b) Bullying
c) Both.
Chances are that should a player do some of the boorish behavior that others have described up earlier in the post, chances are that when their characters performed the evil acts they also crossed the line with the aforementioned actions.
I won't go into the quandary of making zombies or using spells with the [evil] descriptor, that sort of thing is best left to the general RPG boards.
And I think that Fozzy's approach to solving the issue is more than likely the best type of approach. Consult them with how you see their bad choices affect the game and if they continue, you have a right to exclude them from your table.
It seems to me that when we have people when they do these sorts of things that they seem to be "spotlight hogs" who crave negative reinforcement.
I'll offer this to the discussion. If we started to create a way to banning individual characters for becoming evil, how long do you thing it would take for someone from trying to become the record holder for having the most banned characters?
I'm not trying to win anything with the last comment, just wondering if anyone though that might happen.
Second question:
If we are looking to stop this type of behavior, and it sounds like we are, who are we punishing the player or the character?
I have serious doubts that the character will learn anything.
|
|
I see it as impossible to enforce a BAN on anyone from play at the Paizo level. Just because player "X" gets a Ban hammer by Mr. Moreland doesn't mean that player "X" can't just use a fake name and fake email to get a new PFS # and continue to play elsewhere.
If someone wants to play they can. It is that simple.
A table GM can ban a player from their table but there is nothing supporting that in writing. A GM can decide who sits at there table for the most part but conventions can be an exception.
I don't see much gain other than a headache trying to report people to paizo. They don't want to deal with that. Paizo responsibility is to maintain the guidebook for play not maintain a list of people who can't play. It is the GM and Event coordinators to maintain the player base.
|
|
I see it as impossible to enforce a BAN on anyone from play at the Paizo level. Just because player "X" gets a Ban hammer by Mr. Moreland doesn't mean that player "X" can't just use a fake name and fake email to get a new PFS # and continue to play elsewhere.
It is certainly possible to enforce a ban on PFS play, Paizo would need to see that Real Person Name and Paizo# has been banned from the campaign for X. The PFS community is smaller than the living greyhawk community and word will get around. It won't take more than a couple of occurences before people realize that the campaign administration is serious about preventing jerks from ruining the PFS experience for others. The list of banned players/characters/numbers could be added to the resource document where it could be updated as needed.
|
|
I think that while it is possible to put a list together, I don't think that it would be likely, putting people into print negatively could be problematic. Not saying it wouldn't happen, or couldn't , but if I was the coordinator, I would run this by legal first.
Plus, if you publicly list people banned, then you will always be asked why. And honestly it will always seem arbitrary and malicious to some.
I think that in most cases, bad gamesmanship, for lack of better term, builds a reputation that builds up over time. I would have to think that after you prove yourself a jerk, chances are the the game store or convention will learn to keep them out.
But this is my opinion. I might not have looked at all the options.
I think when it comes right down to it, it's hard to make a strict rule on removing a character from play, because we can't know every time if the player is just a jerk or if that person is just really having a bad day and trying to work through some really bad stuff.
So James has a very good point.
When it comes down to it, any GM has a right to remove a player from their table for:
a) Being a jerk
b) Bullying
c) Both.Chances are that should a player do some of the boorish behavior that others have described up earlier in the post, chances are that when their characters performed the evil acts they also crossed the line with the aforementioned actions.
I won't go into the quandary of making zombies or using spells with the [evil] descriptor, that sort of thing is best left to the general RPG boards.
And I think that Fozzy's approach to solving the issue is more than likely the best type of approach. Consult them with how you see their bad choices affect the game and if they continue, you have a right to exclude them from your table.
It seems to me that when we have people when they do these sorts of things that they seem to be "spotlight hogs" who crave negative reinforcement.
I'll offer this to the discussion. If we started to create a way to banning individual characters for becoming evil, how long do you thing it would take for someone from trying to become the record holder for having the most banned characters?
I'm not trying to win anything with the last comment, just wondering if anyone though that might happen.
Second question:
If we are looking to stop this type of behavior, and it sounds like we are, who are we punishing the player or the character?
I have serious doubts that the character will learn anything.
I agree with this, and would also add the the converse is also problematic.
Assume (for the sake of argument) that Paizo/Mark produce a document outlining when/how a GM may ban a character. (Because what we are talking about is banning a character for being "evil", and not banning a player for being disruptive, because a GM can already remove a player from their game and refuse to GM for a player who is disruptive.)
So. Criteria is issued.
How long before we start seeing characters get banned who are "borderline" (as in "if the actions were described one way, they would have met the criteria, but under another description would not")
How long before some GM's start viewing the completion of certain faction missions as sufficient reason to ban a character?
What is the appeals process to a banning? (The continuing refrain that I reads is how overworked Paizo staff are).
What happens when we ban character 9837-3 for evil actions and the player simply begins playing 9837-4 of the same class, same purported alignment, and remarkably similar feats and gear?
How long before a GM decides that it's within his purview to review past chronicles by other GM's for completion of "evil" faction missions? And then issues character bans based on those historic chronicles?
As I have held before, and still hold. A disruptive player can always be removed by a GM. A GM can refuse to seat a player who has a history of disruption at their table. (Even at a convention, I see no reason why a GM cannot refuse to seat a problem player. "I understand that they paid for this slot. You can either seat them at a table that will accept them, or refund their money. They have disrupted my table for the last time and I will not have them do so again. ") A player who is disruptive enough, for a long enough time period will find themselves unwelcome at enough tables that the problem will correct itself.
I see it as impossible to enforce a BAN on anyone from play at the Paizo level. Just because player "X" gets a Ban hammer by Mr. Moreland doesn't mean that player "X" can't just use a fake name and fake email to get a new PFS # and continue to play elsewhere.
If someone wants to play they can. It is that simple.
A table GM can ban a player from their table but there is nothing supporting that in writing. A GM can decide who sits at there table for the most part but conventions can be an exception.
I don't see much gain other than a headache trying to report people to paizo. They don't want to deal with that. Paizo responsibility is to maintain the guidebook for play not maintain a list of people who can't play. It is the GM and Event coordinators to maintain the player base.
The problem Darius, is that we aren't talking about banning players. We are talking about banning characters.
A GM can stop a player from playing at their table. "You are not welcome at my table."
A GM cannot stop a player from playing a particular character at someone else's table. "You cannot play that character at Joe's table."
Exactly. I`m not sure why so many people are confused about the distinction between Evil Characters (PCs) not being legal for play and PLAYERS being banned (which isn`t related to Evil alignment restrictions). I repeatedly used the phrase `ban a character/PC`, NOT the player.
AGAIN, here is what Mark wrote:
Committing a single evil act doesn't warrant an alignment change (unless one is a paladin, in which case the rules are more strict), but if, as was originally stated, a PC went around murdering every NPC in the Puddles District, that would be grounds for removing the PC from play. Ultimately, a GM can make whatever call they want, because they're the GM.
So Mark is pretty clearly envisioning GMs removing PCs from play for becoming Evil.
The mechanism for that is writing `Alignment shifted to Evil: No longer legal for play.` on the chronicle.Any other GM who looks at the chronicle sheet will see that it is no longer legal for play,
and not being able to play, the character has no opportunity to shift alignment back to a legal one.
Thus THAT CHARACTER can`t legally play in any game, any more than any other illegal character
Many GMs may not check chronicles completely, but that`s the case for all PFS rules which may be broken.
Players who get a rep for trying to play with illegal characters will probably have that rep catch up with them.
The player involved should have no negative repurcussions for continuing to play with other characters,
and I don`t see any reason to label their role as `bad` if they were role-playing the character well,
it just so happens that Paizo has decided to have the `story` of such characters end at the point they actually become Evil.
The whole issue has practically nothing to with disrupting game-play or anything else (i.e. player issues), it is simply a hard rule of PFS re: Evil alignments. Honestly, I don`t know why they have the rule, the PCs as member of the PFS which has Evil members and leaders within it, can already be assumed to have a working relationship with Evil, so working with Evil PCs is hardly a stretch. Obviously, it`s easy to have other rules like `don`t publicly do wantonly criminal acts unless ordered to by the PFS`, since that would reflect badly on the PFS.
Really, I see Paizo`s concern more that they want it to remain somewhat `family friendly` and all, and having people feel free to act totally Evil may threaten that... I think the better approach is just to empower GMs, and event coordinators, to ntt allow Evil PCs in THEIR games, or to have specific `open alignment` areas vs. `good and neutral only` (or only good)... Perhaps under-18 players can be pointed to those games, where this is actually a concern.
The mechanism for that is writing `Alignment shifted to Evil: No longer legal for play.` on the chronicle.
Any other GM who looks at the chronicle sheet will see that it is no longer legal for play,
and not being able to play, the character has no opportunity to shift alignment back to a legal one.
Thus THAT CHARACTER can`t legally play in any game, any more than any other illegal character
And yet nothing in the Guide empowers a GM to do this.
If a GM attempted this with one of my chronicles, I would either:
1) pitch the chronicle, and ignore whatever the GM had to say from that point further.
2) Take a black sharpie to the unauthorized text, just as I would if the GM decided to issue a boon that was not listed on the chronicle.
3) report the GM to my Venture Captain and to Paizo staff for abusive behavior.
A GM can ban me from his table.
A GM cannot ban my character.
Paizo may decided to empower GM's to do so at some point in the future, but I sincerely hope that they do not, for the problematic reasons I outlined upthread.
|
|
A table GM can ban a player from their table but there is nothing supporting that in writing. A GM can decide who sits at there table for the most part but conventions can be an exception.
I agree with most of what's in this thread, but I am a bit confused as to this statement. Are you suggesting that, as a GM, I cannot ban a player, from my table, for what I deem as habitual bad behavior? Why would this be any different than a player choosing to never sit a particular GM's table?
And why would conventions be different? If I had cause to ban a player from my table and encountered said player at a convention, my stance would remain the same.
Granted, I have yet to find cause to ban a player, but I reserve the right to do so. I don't think we need a specific rule regarding this outside of the understood relationship between players and GM's, and our choice to play (or not play) with whomever we choose.
|
|
Paizo may decided to empower GM's to do so at some point in the future, but I sincerely hope that they do not, for the problematic reasons I outlined upthread.
Ignoring my personal opinion as to whether or not a GM already have the power to make harsh rulings against a character...
Assuming that Paizo had the inclination to formulate and publish offical guidelines covering this issue, and if (a big if), they had the staff to field all the conflict/incident reviews that could stem from such a decision, I would have no problem with it.
Not hoping this happens, just saying. I don't think that it would change much other than to, hopefully, rein in the worst offenders of bad in game behavior. Whether that be players or GM's abusing their "power."
For many GM's, I think that "Don't be a jerk" mostly applies to the player. But if the player is just "acting in character" and the PC is in fact the disruptive one, it becomes much more challenging to adjudicate the issue.
Having a defined way to flag that PC, could be useful in avoiding future problems for other GM's or more importantly players who just want a casual game and don't want to deal with disruptive characters.
But, IMO, this issue is all hypothetical. I am not aware of any GM's who have forced an alignment change on a character, nor banned a PC from play. And I am only aware of one occurrence where a GM (happened to be a VC) who stripped a paladin of his powers. The character was not banned from play and was able to seek atonement if applicable.
In my experience, informing the player of possible ramifications of their intended actions has always been sufficient to have them reconsider. And by ramifications, I am not referring to an alignment change. More of how said action could influence other NPC actions, or provoke the ire of the local law enforcement.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Fozzy, the campaign coordinator disagrees with your position. A GM is empowered to do exactly what you're suggesting. He then reports the character as "dead".
You can throw away that last chronicle sheet, if you like. You can throw away everything about that character, if you like. What you can't do is play the character at a PFS table.
You can continue your repeated assertions that this procedure isn't in the Guide. That's right; I haven't seen anybody here arguing it is.
|
|
I think that there might be two co versatile going on. Both have there points.
One side says if someone in the span of one scenario completes enough evil acts should the GM remove the character from play. Presumedly the GM would report the Character dead to remove them from play with the reporting system we currently have.
One side says that if the player is performing the acts with his character, the are really breaking more than the "no evil" rule, but more than likely the "don't be a jerk" rule, hence, the GM should take corrective behavior with the player.
The "don't be a jerk" rule IMHO always pre supposes that the GM can take corrective actions to keep his table running smoothly, no matter what kind of bad behavior is, in or out of character.
Either way we cut this, there are issues.
And there might be a third point I haven't thought of.
Fozzy, the campaign coordinator disagrees with your position. A GM is empowered to do exactly what you're suggesting. He then reports the character as "dead".
You can throw away that last chronicle sheet, if you like. You can throw away everything about that character, if you like. What you can't do is play the character at a PFS table.
You can continue your repeated assertions that this procedure isn't in the Guide. That's right; I haven't seen anybody here arguing it is.
If a rule does not exist in the rules source, it is not a rule.
If you, or another GM attempted to define my character as evil and remove it from PFS play, and I disagreed, then I would simply ignore you and keep playing it.
If you, or another GM within the game told me that my character had well and truly crossed into the realm of evil, and I agreed that he had, then I would simply purchase an atonement casting, and keep playing it.
You keep talking like "evil" is some magic word. It isn't.
In fact, you aren't talking about disruptive play at all. You are simply talking about a character doing actions that you do not like.
The "don't be a jerk" rule IMHO always pre supposes that the GM can take corrective actions to keep his table running smoothly, no matter what kind of bad behavior is, in or out of character.
Yes.
The "Don't be a jerk" rule applies. I'll even go so far as to say it applies both to players and to GM's.
The other week, at a non-pfs (actually non-pathfinder) game, I saw my first truly disruptive player. He literally brought the entire game to a screeching halt for about 45 minutes.
Because it was the start of a home game, I think the GM was trying hard to not simply tell the player to leave. The general consensus amongst players (after the event) was that that player was generally being a jerk and should have been shown the door.
I hope to Odin, that should I ever act like that in a game, I get shown the door before I can embarrass myself further.
|
|
Stuff
Quandary, you wrote a lot of judgmental crap but one thing you fail to understand is that I wasn't GM. So it didn't really matter WHAT I think, I wasn't in a position to do anything about it. So arguing with me isn't going to do a ___ ____ thing.
Also, in defense of the GM, I'm really not sure how you can compare:
1) A PC who kills an evil and insane Urgathoan cultist who is trying to kill every living thing in town.
2) A PC who is running around the Puddles killing innocent NPCs.
And you're seriously comparing them? lol.
And this just sounds like mixing up player/character issues. Note that a player portraying a character committing Evil Acts does NOT need to be disruptive to the game as a whole, or problematic to the other players. Maybe it would provoke inter-character conflict (but so can other stuff that adds more flavor to the game, and isn`t a game-ending problem), but with a party of CN PC`s there may very well be ZERO inter-party issues.
Blah blah blah. Did you read anything of what I said about this player? Of course they were separate issues. I’d talk to the player and nudge him about alignment, but before that would have happened I probably would have kicked him from my table for being disruptive and talking over me several times before that and in general being someone I don’t want to game with. Clear now?
I also don`t get how you can dispute the notion of adjusting Alignment to Evil, yet you are OK with adjusting it to Chaotic Neutral.
Again, if you're not going to read what people write, don't bother responding. I said I would NUDGE. Nudge doesn't mean force, it means nudge, which means gently and diplomatically try to convince the player that his PC should be a different alignment.
I also said his single action wasn't even evil enough to nudge him away from good. Maybe over a few session I could tell? Who the ___ knows, I won't be in his group long enough to find out. And I’m not his GM so I’d never have that authority either.
So anyway, thanks for being argumentative with me (for no reason) and taking (what I thought) was a fun example and making me wish I never shared anything.
In addition, if I was GM, it absolutely matters what I think, and since it's been clearly stated that individual GMs can adjudicate gameplay... it would be my call to make, and your opinion is exactly that, an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions? They’re like a#*$$#@s, everyone’s got one.
Anyway, I hate alignment threads and find them pointless, so I'm out and waiting for Mark's response.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The character has not 'died' and failed to be raised. A GM doing so would be cheating and should be reported to the campaign for their actions.
This.
A GM who misreports a character that he does not like as having "died" is himself clearly violating the "don't be a jerk" rule.
(It's not like "dead" and "evil" are even permanent states in Pathfinder. Dead characters can be raised. Evil characters can atone, should their class require it. Heck, any character can atone for a modest fee - though it is interesting to think about what a neutral character might atone for. "Dear Abadar, I'm sorry that I saved that cartload of orphans from the dragon and failed to collect my normal fee for heroic endeavors. I will not fail you again...")
|
|
The problem Darius, is that we aren't talking about banning players. We are talking about banning characters.
A GM can stop a player from playing at their table. "You are not welcome at my table."
A GM cannot stop a player from playing a particular character at someone else's table. "You cannot play that character at Joe's table."
Yep your right. I was talking players but this conversion is about players.
|
|
A table GM can ban a player from their table but there is nothing supporting that in writing. A GM can decide who sits at there table for the most part but conventions can be an exception.I agree with most of what's in this thread, but I am a bit confused as to this statement. Are you suggesting that, as a GM, I cannot ban a player, from my table, for what I deem as habitual bad behavior? Why would this be any different than a player choosing to never sit a particular GM's table?
And why would conventions be different? If I had cause to ban a player from my table and encountered said player at a convention, my stance would remain the same.
Granted, I have yet to find cause to ban a player, but I reserve the right to do so. I don't think we need a specific rule regarding this outside of the understood relationship between players and GM's, and our choice to play (or not play) with whomever we choose.
My statement was in reply to a James Maissen who seems to post that things not written on the Guide to PFS play can not be done.
I am with you that a GM can tell a player you can't play at my table and vice-versa. Convention play applies as well but you tend to get more strangers at the table that you don't have much prior history with players so less likely of worrying of banning people.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
(It's not like "dead" and "evil" are even permanent states in Pathfinder. Dead characters can be raised. Evil characters can atone, should their class require it.
Not quite. A character that remains dead at the end of a chronicle is well and truly gone from the campaign. His friends can pay for a raise dead for him at that point, but if they need to all go on one more outing to raise funds, it's too late. (Guide, page 18.)
--
And, by all means, I think anybody who gets the character booted for "evil" play ought to appeal the decision. I imagine if he did so with an attitude of "I screwed up, I was way out of line, and I'd like to know what I need to do to play that character again" it would probably work better than an affected sense of outrage at a GM who's trying to do his job.
The guide also prohibit cheating, in even stronger language. I would imagine that continuing to play with a dead character, or ignoring a chronicle sheet a player didn't happen to like, wouldn't incline the campaign management staff any further towards him.
--
Okay, then how about the FAQ or PF errata?
James, what's in the Guide is "you can't play an evil character," on page 6. What's in the Pathfinder rules is that a character's alignment is the judgement of the gamemaster, rather than the player, on page 168.
What Mark has written has been repeated in this thread: in the extreme case of a character, say, burning down a town and causing deliberate havoc, he's outlined a procedure to remove the character from the game.
That's just a guideline, you're right, because rules interpretations from Mark in the form of messageboard posts aren't iron-clad. But, in that sort of extreme case, it's a guideline we can follow.
--
All this has already been said and repeated. I apologize for taking everyone's time to do so again. I expect that you, or Fozzy, will protest, and then the other will agree with that protest, and then the first one will agree with the agreement, perhaps with a "like" or using bold. Again, and repeated.
But we're talking corner cases here. Nobody's argued that the GM ought to surprise the player. Or bully the player.
--
Let me use an example. My character Cadavrul is a Dhampyr cleric of Urgathoa with the Undead Lord archetype. I've set him as Neutral aligned. But the Undead Lord can call an undead (skeleton or zombie) companion with 8 hours.
Let's say a particular GM feels that Cadavrul using that class ability is evil. I would expect him to let me know well in advance. I'd expect that we'd be very clear on whether I'd need an atonement (however that might work from the Pallid Princess) or if animating an animal skeleton would be enough to boot my character from the campaign. If the latter, I should elect to refrain from doing so while at his table, howsoever long that is.
Or, let's say that Cadavrul decides to infect an entire town with whitepox, in service to Urgathoa. Again, I'd expect the GM to let me know if he had any problems with that. I could make my decision about going ahead, or not, based on his counsel.
|
Except that in example one it shouldn't be the whim of the table if using class abilities that are play legal are bannable offenses.
With example 2 unless there is a damn good reason then yes that should always fall under shift towards evil that is clearly diruptive behavior and one that shouldn't even need to be brought up to know its wrong for PFS play.
|
|
Kronin / Talonkawke, I'm glad that your views are clear, and if you were my GM, I'd expect you to let me know that, at your table, raising my zombie chum is okay, but spreading disease is not.
Other GMs might feel differently about each, or about my repeatedly casting infernal healing, or harming people by channelling negative energy, or killing downed opponents with death knell. It's good to talk these things through.
|
|
Then Chris, these are NOT the rules. The campaign guide clearly lists what are the rules of PFS and what are not. The rules do not give you or any other GM this.
I think that part of the problem here may be a couple of different views on what a "guideline" entails.
You, Fozzy, and others appear to believe that as a messageboard post by a campaign co-ordinator is merely a "guideline", it is unenforceable and therefore illegal.
I believe that a "guideline" from one of the Paizo campaign co-ordinators indicates the desired practice to use, and that a GM who uses that practice (even though it is not a hard-coded rule) is well within their rights.
Fozzy, I agree that something written on a Chronicle is unlikely to be enforced, not because it is outside the guidelines, but because auditing of Chronicles is something which there is usually not time for. However, I find it hard to fathom that someone would feel that a GM who follows a guideline is breaking the rules, but a player who destroys or alters a Chronicle is doing anything other than cheating.
Then Chris, these are NOT the rules. The campaign guide clearly lists what are the rules of PFS and what are not. The rules do not give you or any other GM this.
I think that part of the problem here may be a couple of different views on what a "guideline" entails.
You, Fozzy, and others appear to believe that as a messageboard post by a campaign co-ordinator is merely a "guideline", it is unenforceable and therefore illegal.
I believe that a "guideline" from one of the Paizo campaign co-ordinators indicates the desired practice to use, and that a GM who uses that practice (even though it is not a hard-coded rule) is well within their rights.Fozzy, I agree that something written on a Chronicle is unlikely to be enforced, not because it is outside the guidelines, but because auditing of Chronicles is something which there is usually not time for. However, I find it hard to fathom that someone would feel that a GM who follows a guideline is breaking the rules, but a player who destroys or alters a Chronicle is doing anything other than cheating.
I suspect that we will not reach agreement on this, and that the point is largely moot. If the informal polling on this site is any indication, it is unlikely that you will ever remove a character for being evil, and it is just as unlikely (if not more so) that I will ever have one of my characters similarly removed.
At the heart of the disagreement between us, I think, is a basic philosophical difference as to the limits of a GM's authority. I contend that the GM's authority is limited to the table he is running. I believe that you contend that authority extends beyond the table.
Absent specific rules text in a document from Paizo, we will continue to disagree. Here again, it is my impression that you believe that informal guidance in forum posts constitutes actionable policy, while I contend that the rules documents are the only authority which can be relied upon.
And, I think the final point of disagreement is on what constitutes cheating. I have expressed the opinion that a GM who exceeds the authority granted in the rules documents is himself cheating, while you appear to be stating that the GM has the authority to make binding notations on a characters sheet even absent any rules enabling the action. I have contended that any player is free to ignore notations that are not supported by the rules, just as they would be compelled to ignore boons granted on those sheets by a GM that felt he could gift players with.
|
|
I suspect that we will not reach agreement on this, and that the point is largely moot.
I agree with this part of your post.
I also strongly suspect that if you and I were to ever sit down at a table to game together, both of us would have fun, and none of this would be an issue.I would say, though, that a player who felt a GM had exceeded their authority or broken some rule would be more within the rules to bring the matter to a co-ordinator, VC, org, or even their next GM than they would be to alter or destroy a Chronicle.
I suspect that we will not reach agreement on this, and that the point is largely moot.I agree with this part of your post.
I also strongly suspect that if you and I were to ever sit down at a table to game together, both of us would have fun, and none of this would be an issue.I would say, though, that a player who felt a GM had exceeded their authority or broken some rule would be more within the rules to bring the matter to a co-ordinator, VC, org, or even their next GM than they would be to alter or destroy a Chronicle.
To which I reply that a GM who felt that a player character had irretrievably crossed the line into evil alignment would be more within the rules to bring the matter to a co-ordinator, VC, org, or Paizo staff than they would be to write their own text into a Chronicle.
And yes, I suspect that if we were to ever sit down at a table to game, that both us would have fun, and we would never see this issue come up.
|
|
Take a look at what the guide does in regards to cheating. It leaves it up to the campaign administration rather than the table judge. The judge reports it and the administration decides.
Actually, no. It says do not cheat.
Under bullying, it says
GMs should work with their
event coordinators to resolve any out-of-game conflicts.
If you are both the GM and the coordinator, use your own
discretion. Extreme or repetitive cases should be resolved
by asking the offender to leave the table.
Tell me what my little 4 step process above doesn't solve here?
Egregious and/or repeat cases.
Tell me what would cause you to purposefully misreport a game session?
Cases where I thought the player would do something to the Chronicle and continue to play the character in contravention of the "No Evil Characters" rule.
Take a look at what the guide does in regards to cheating. It leaves it up to the campaign administration rather than the table judge. The judge reports it and the administration decides.Actually, no. It says do not cheat.
Actually:
If you believe the player to be cheating,
ask him to leave your table and then send an email to the
Pathfinder Society campaign staff (pathfindersociety@
paizo.com), detailing as much as you can remember
about the sheet—most importantly, get the Pathfinder
Society number of the player in question.
|
|
Take a look at what the guide does in regards to cheating. It leaves it up to the campaign administration rather than the table judge. The judge reports it and the administration decides.Actually, no. It says do not cheat.
Actually:
If you believe the player to be cheating,
ask him to leave your table and then send an email to the
Pathfinder Society campaign staff (pathfindersociety@
paizo.com), detailing as much as you can remember
about the sheet—most importantly, get the Pathfinder
Society number of the player in question.
Apologies. I looked in the Cheating section, not the Record Keeping section. However, it also says earlier in the same paragraph that a coordinator can make a ruling.