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.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.
Here's the whole section:
When you are looking over the character record sheets
and Chronicle sheets of your players at the start of an
event slot, if you notice anything that seems amiss, you
may ask the player to justify the math. If you believe a
player to be cheating, please call over a coordinator to
make a ruling. If you are both the coordinator and the
GM, it’s your call how to proceed, though we recommend
that you proceed calmly, nicely, and with an open mind.
The player may have simply made a mistake, or you
might have made a mistake in your understanding of his
Chronicle sheet and character record sheet. Remember
that the game is supposed to be fun, so waste as little
time as possible on drama and spend as much time as
possible providing an exciting, action-packed scenario
for your players. 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.
Emphasis mine.
I read the "make a ruling" to be as to whether or not cheating did occur. I really didn't read it as allowing the coordinator or GM to ban the character from future play. I read it more as in the range of "I won't allow you to use that feat/item/boon at my table" to "I won't allow you to play that character at my table" and not within the range of "I'm going to report your character to have died, even though he didn't."
|
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.
<snip>
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?
<snip>
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.
Did I miss something?
Jason, I really don't think Quandary was disagreeing with your verdict on the player in the example. He was addressing a different point in your post, re you disagreeing what options GMs have available to them.
Fozzy and I read your example, and as far as I could see, we both agreed that such a player should be bounced for being disruptive*.
Your example was briefly discussed, and folk have moved on to other examples, or other points. That's just the way it is on forums.
*If, as in this case, he is with his buddies, who accept such behaviour, that makes things more difficult, but I would say shame on them and the GM, for not taking the enjoyment of all participants into consideration (ie, making you feel like an outsider). When playing with new people, I think it's a good idea to be on better behaviour, especially regarding smut, gore and childish actions.
|
If certain faction missions fall under "you cant complete them without a black mark", then doesn't that mean that the factions involved will never have any real chance of making it ahead in the larger game?
Cheliax, Sczarni, and any faction that dabbles in evil-leaning missions will be working under a severe handicap.
|
If certain faction missions fall under "you cant complete them without a black mark", then doesn't that mean that the factions involved will never have any real chance of making it ahead in the larger game?
Cheliax, Sczarni, and any faction that dabbles in evil-leaning missions will be working under a severe handicap.
I think that it is the position of the PFS that performing a faction mission should ever take you out of the game.
Some faction missions might be very hard for Paladins if they choose szarni or chelax. But being creative might solve some problems, and some just might like the challenge.
|
Based on Marks comments about "Evil Acts" I expect we will see something in the guide in the coming months.
That said, I am fully against doing anything but "Suggestions" for players that faction missions don't fit their alignment, though I do believe Players need to be conscious of what their alignment is before choosing a faction, and I would allow a player to change their alignment to better fit the faction they picked.
On obvious evil acts, I suspect we will see something coming down the road in the guide from Mark that will allow some kind of "punishment" from GMs, though also from marks comments he may be rethinking his position, since he mentioned the discussion gave him a lot to think about. When it comes to Obvious Evil acts, I less see it as GM punishing the player and more the player doing it to themselves, players should know better than to be that disruptive, though for me with the lack of a "Codified" ruling as of yet I personally just ask the player to leave my table.
As for this thread, I'll be reexamining a lot of the discussion here for consideration of codifying in the campaign documents.
Mark has stated his position on this and suggest on how it should be treated, and though many of you don't like it, that does give the power to the GMs to do as he suggests, even if it is not in the guide.
From time to time the PFS campaign staff will discuss rules on the PFS boards. When we do, those posts should be treated as a rules clarification or explanation. Until the official PFS rules document (or FAQ) contains that ruling, the clarification should be considered optional because we can't and don't expect every player or GM to read every thread on the message boards all the time.
Based on that above, GMs have the power to enforce the suggestion by Mark, even if it is not in the guide yet.
On Banning players, I don't think there is a way to "Officially" ban players from PFS, but I fully am under the opinion it is in the power of the coordinator to Ban extremely disruptive players from their local Games.
I have done this once, there is one player I will never allow in any of our local PFS games due to him being an Offensive Drunk and uncontrollably disruptive. I have not banned him from PFS but there is no way in hell I will allow him to play in any of our games.
|
|
1. Talk to the player. Things can be subjective and the issue might be more grey than you think that it is.
This is something I don't think I've seen brought up.
The player may have misunderstood the terms of his mission.
Or be reading things between the lines that aren't intended.
"NPC X has interfered in our business too often. I want him dealt with." could be as simple as exposing a crime, that gets him incarcerated for a long time.
Job done, he's out of the faction's hair.
And if they do really want him dead, well, they know where he is.
One of the factions less squeamish NPCs can take it from there.
The player reads it as "Tonight, he sleeps with the fish...", and thinks he has to personally deliver a killing blow.
The second interpretation is the one that could lead to disruption at the table, while the first is not only a creative solution, that keeps the PC's hands clean, but can be used to justify taking NPC X down, to those awkward Andoran/Silver Crusade/paladin types. Prove that NPC X is a complete douche, and they'll kill him for you.
|
|
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....
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.
And there might be a third point I haven't thought of.
A third possibility is when the player is not disruptive (he's charming, quiet, helpful to the GM and other players), and isn't racking up enough evil acts in a single session to be sent on the fast train to Evil Town.
Some GMs believe they should be tracking such behaviour, so it eventually has a cumulative drip-effect.
My problem with that, is that such GMs usually don't track the good acts with as much rigour, or account for intent or context.
"Sure, I animated a corpse. It was an orc. A dirty orc! I used it to block the tunnel, so the slaves could escape!"
|
|
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....
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.
And there might be a third point I haven't thought of.
A third possibility is when the player is not disruptive (he's charming, quiet, helpful to the GM and other players), and isn't racking up enough evil acts in a single session to be sent on the fast train to Evil Town.
Some GMs believe they should be tracking such behaviour, so it eventually has a cumulative drip-effect.
My problem with that, is that such GMs usually don't track the good acts with as much rigour, or account for intent or context.
"Sure, I animated a corpse. It was an orc. A dirty orc! I used it to block the tunnel, so the slaves could escape!"
And that's why I leave myself an open to other possibilities.
I have to admit, I'm not that interested in tracking those indiscretions. I could see characters stating that they spent their down time doing good deeds.
I like the idea of people working in the "grey" area. Yea I'd ding a paladin, or maybe a good character for animating dead, but that would be a change from good to neutral rather that straight on evil if they were trying to save lives. In that situation, it's more or less flavorful and the players might like trying to get absolution.
But this is highly hypothetical and I really think should be a one off kind of situation.
Here is something that I don't want to see, if you start creating a system like this, then people build to the system. Players push the envelope seeing haw far they can go, and writers start to see if the can catch people in the trap. I don't want to play the game called "you loose", I was to play Pathfinder.
|
|
Here is something that I don't want to see, if you start creating a system like this, then people build to the system. Players push the envelope seeing haw far they can go, and writers start to see if the can catch people in the trap. I don't want to play the game called "you loose", I was to play Pathfinder.It frightens me as we continue to agree.
-James
At the risk of sounding snarky, I told you that I was a likable guy.
|
|
At the risk (certainty?) of rehashing:
I am relatively new to PFS (1-4th lvl character), I have role played in a large variety of systems for over 25 years.
To me, alignments serve as a philisophical foundation for a player to build a character's personality and morality. In any system I've played in that utilized alignments, there have been in-game consequences for majorly stepping outside of the characters chosen alignment.
PFS has ruled that "No evil alignments are allowed in Pathfinder Society Organized Play." (Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, version 4.0, page 6.) To me, this means a player cannot run a character whose actions consistently fall under the Evil alignment template.
I have seen some good recomendations in this thread for GMs to follow when faced with a player committing a non-alignment action. My interpretation is as follows:
- First: Inform the player (politely and professionally) that the action is contrary to the character's alignment, and provide an opportunity for the player to redirect the character.
- Second: Adjudicate the action and reaction to the character's action by witnesses and law enforcement (city guard, neighborhood protection, minions and hirelings etc.), as you would in any other campaign, within the framework of the current setting and situation. If the character has class-specific alignment or code requirements (Paladin is the platonic example), apply the appropriate consequences.
- Third: If the player has their character consistently commit actions outside their alignment, privately (politely and professionally) discuss the intent behind the actions, and recommend alternatives (alignment change, activity modification) with the player, with the goal of bringing the character and actions into closer alignment. (That was an unintended funny.)
- Fourth: If the character's actions are disrupting the flow of play and/or the enjoyment of the game by other players, ask the player (politely and professionally) to leave the table for this scenario. If a player (not character) consistently disrupts the table, it is the GM's option not to seat the player.
- Fifth: If a player is consistently violating the "No Evil character" clause through a character(s) actions, consult with your VC and Pathfinder campaign management for direction. "If a particular issues comes up repeatedly or causes a notable problem in one of your games, please raise any questions or concerns on the Pathfinder Society Messageboards at paizo.com/pathfindersociety and the campaign management staff or the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game development team will work to provide you with an answer to avoid confusion in the future." (Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, version 4.0, page 25.) As always, document the instances in question, so that the VC and campaign staff can make an informed decision.
In regards to chronicle sheets, I am of the opinion that comments, positive or negative, regarding character actions/achievements of note are perfectly acceptable. I received a note on my first chronicle regarding a combat victory my character accomplished, and still have a warm fuzzy when I review what my character has done. They provide no in-game advantage or penalty, but merely document what the character has done that is worthy of mention. Having played PFS at Origins this year, I can understand that a GM has little time to carefully review the chronicle series for every character at the table, but in the face of repeated out-of-alignment actions during a scenario, a request to review a character's sheets for comments would not be out of line.
To finish (finally), a GM has control over their table, and over the flow of play induce by the actions of the characters within the scenario. There is a mechanism in place to obtain a formal ruling on the status of a character with consistent, documented actions.
For what it is worth,
Ted
Fozzy, what does a PFS GM do when your discussion doesn't work?
And when you encounter the player at multiple locations?
As a DM, I go to the campaign coordinator and let them know I want to eject a player from my table.
Thing is... it's really a small world out there.. Within a region a player can build up enough bad blood to get to the point where he's effectively ostracized from gaming. I've seen it happen with one person to whom I'm of close acquaintance back in the Living Greyhawk/Living City days.
You really don't even need a VC's approval. If it were me, I would have phrased the bolded quote as:
As a DM, I go to the campaign coordinator and let them know that I have ejected a player from my table.
I've never had to eject a player, and I hope that I never do, but if that time comes, at my table, it is my option who plays and who does not.
I have to say, reading through this thread I'm slightly astounding that everyone (or at least a reasonably large portion) seems to think that a good character would never kill another person.
You, sir, make an excellent point. Thank you for speaking up.
In the real world, I capture and release all creatures, even poisonous ones, at my house and teach my children how to properly protect themselves from accidental encounters. We've got spiders (black widows and brown recluses), scorpions, centipedes, and snakes (copperheads, cottonmouths (the only venomous aquatic snake native to North America), rattlesnakes, and coral snakes) around here. Having lived much of my life in rural environments, I've had encounters with all of these and have never had to kill one...
Now, if I'm in a situation where a snake, for instance, is an imminent danger to my children, I'll kill it given no other option. I won't be happy about having to do so, but I'll protect my kids over an animal. My kids are, however, generally safer around such animals because they know not to panic and thus react in a way that provokes the animal to attack...
First of all... In what nightmare land do you live?? It sounds like you are constantly fending off attacks. Being from the city, I generally don't open the door if there are flies trying to get in. I can't imagine finding venomous snakes curled up on my couch, presumably drinking my soda cans and watching my Netflix (as I imagine happens in your area).
Secondly, I was wondering how you handled the issue of an unrepentant killer who is not in control of his own actions? For example, a sociopathic psychopath who is incapable of stopping himself from killing others? A good example of this, strangely enough, comes from the Dragonage games. The player is sent on a quest to retrieve a killer, and is approached later by a man who lets the player know that the killer is a serial murderer of children. The killer, when found, is completely out of his mind. Healers have tried to help him, but he is being protected by powerful people high up in the chain of command, so he cannot be held in any prison or facility. If he escapes, he will certainly continue to murder children. When the player finds this killer, the killer is huddled over on the floor, helpless and defenseless.
My question is... under the definition which you gave (a very clear and concise one, thank you for providing it), respect for life is important. Up until this point, it seems that you have equated killing a helpless person as not respecting life. Would it make a difference if the person doing the killing understood that the person was not in control of their own behavior, and ended the person's life to not only protect potential future victims, but to free the person from their own cycle of madness and violence, from which they could not free themselves?
I realize that this is a bit of a stretch, but it is also possible that, in the heat of the moment, even a Good person could make the call that the proven murderer is not in control of themselves. This could be a personal view, that the person never learned right from wrong or some such thing, but that would really be up to the player and GM to work out roleplay-wise. (I assume that as a faction mission target, the person would stick to their guns and maintain whatever they were set to believe, rather than the GM forcing the target into an emotional epiphany whereby the killing would be done on a newly repentant former-killer.)
All of that being said... it is possible that a particularly judgmental Good person could truly believe that those who do evil for long enough never learned right from wrong, and are in fact freeing the unrepentant murderer from their own cycle of violence. And yes, I realize that this sort of argument has been used IRL to justify enormous amounts of violence, and I am not arguing that it is a Good action IRL.... but in a fantasy setting, where it is a constant battle simply to stay alive, and non-human creatures roam around specifically looking for humanoids to devour, is it not possible that such a view could be viewed (by some) as Good? Arguable, yes, but enough to justify keeping a Good alignment on one's sheet?
And, finally... I realize that this is entirely a philosophical argument, and will never really be settled. Creating characters who only do non-lethal damage, holding trials, creating prisons with emotional/social rehabilitation centers, and releasing rehabilitated prisoners into the world in halfway homes and work-release programs is just not going to make for a fun game. Heck, that system doesn't even work IRL.
Please note, you do not have to accept an enemy's surrender.
Please note, you do not have to accept an enemy's surrender.
Please note, you do not have to accept an enemy's surrender.
Yes, this post deserved to be quoted 3 times. Probably the most concise way of ending this debate.
First of all... In what nightmare land do you live?? It sounds like you are constantly fending off attacks. Being from the city, I generally don't open the door if there are flies trying to get in. I can't imagine finding venomous snakes curled up on my couch, presumably drinking my soda cans and watching my Netflix (as I imagine happens in your area).
Yeah, most city-folk kill the critters they shouldn't, then pay somebody else to kill the other critters that would have been eaten by the former...Spiders eat the flies, centipedes eat the roaches, snakes eat the rats and mice, etc...
I live in the city myself now (Birmingham, AL) so my reptile encounters are generally lower but there's never a shortage of arachnids and other venomous "bugs" given the favorable climate. My earlier life was in rural Alabama. I can tell you, though, you're generally in more danger from humans than critters. Especially the lay-about types that will most definitely steal your Coke (we don't say soda down here--that's immediate evidence of Northern blood...) and bum off your Netflix subscription so they don't have to pay for cable!
The rest...
Note up front that I've never been advocating for alignment changes, marking chronicles, etc. in PFS--I'll do whatever campaign staff direct there. Also, note that I do not hold the position that a Good character will never kill.
That said, I also hold actions as separately aligned from characters. The act of killing is never Good--it shows no respect for life. This does not mean a Good character will never kill in the heat of battle, or as a "mercy killing" as such, or as punishment for a heinous crime. But this does not change the nature of killing in and of itself. Specifically, I do not support moral relativism--i.e. the alignment of an action is not changed by the circumstances around that action, the outcome of the action, etc. One might use circumstances and outcomes as justification, but said justification does not change the moral nature of the act itself. Most players just role right through killing the goblins, orcs, heck even random people in a bar fight, and think nothing about it because "it's just a game" but I do not support that play style.
In your example, that would be an excellent situation to test the morality of a character--I can tell you if I were playing a staunchly Good character I'd do everything I could to (1) incapacitate the murderer and (2) stop the Evil at the top that is forcing his actions/protecting him. That would likely be a hard path to follow, and I'd enjoy it for that reason, but it would ultimately lead to a very memorable game versus "meh, he's unredeemable Evil so I kill him...on to the next encounter!" If I were playing a vaguely Good or Neutral character I'd probably just kill the guy as the best choice (using that "circumstance and outcome" justification above). If I were playing Evil, I'd probably try to figure out what was making him act this way so I could use it for my own purposes...
Well, that was a very thoughtful way of looking at it. I'm not sure right now if I agree with it or not, but it is definitely food for thought. Thank you :) For what it's worth, I agree that people tend to skip past killing far too easily. I am ashamed to admit that I am more likely to do this as the night goes on and on, but to be fair I also forget at that point to add things like flanking. Last night, after our first major battle with brand new characters, I was considering doing something about the first humanoid I had killed in the campaign... but then looked up and found my poor GM almost asleep, since we had dragged the session way past her bedtime :D Sometimes there just isn't time for it right on the spot. Of course, that isn't to say that I wouldn't do something for it at the beginning of next session, when we're at a convenient temple or morning prayers.
Anyway... thanks for the thoughtful post, it did get me thinking.