|
'Dont be a jerk' seems to be one of the 'depends on the situation' rules that is largely left up to the GM. How do you guys feel it falls with faction missions that conflict with other party members characters/alignment/faction missions.
I dont remember the mod or the faction, but a shop keeper has to be murdered with a specific kind of poison which is apparently very painful.
If the party also has a Paladin, is he allowed to intervene and prevent the other player from completing their faction mission? Is he supposed to just stand around and let the other party member do what they want?
What if two opposing factions have opposing missions (Andoran keep a guy alive, Chelaxian make sure he dies). Couldnt the player who loses the faction point claim that the other player is being a jerk by not allowing them to complete their mission?
|
My memory may be fuzzy (not hammer ;-), but as I recall there was only one scenario where the faction missions were in conflict and I think it was retired.
As a player of a paladin, I have encountered this situation numerous times. I tried to create an out for players by making him a drunkard so they could more easily perform acts without his knowledge (He has no ranks in Perception and a Wis of 10). That might be lame and somewhat meta-gaming, but I didn't want to ruin everyone's fun by always having to argue over whether or not LG would have an issue with their actions. He will voice his opinion if necessary, but he rarely catches the "offender" until it's too late.
Another thing to remember is that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission ;-). So, in many cases, you can just act. Sure the pally (or goodly cleric) may try to intercede, but it might be too late. And you can always appeal to them for absolution of your "crime" later. Sometimes to make an omelet you have to break some eggs.
The key is not to just whine about having a pally in your group. It creates role-playing opportunities and isn't that the reason we all got together in the first place? And the next time you're faced with undead, dragons, or evil outsiders, you will wish you had a pally in front :-)
Remember, the pally is telling himself the same thing. "Oh no, I have a few questionable characters with me this time. How am I going to get through this?"
|
|
Just to note: Im not complaining about having a pally at a table.
Sorry, if I came across sounding like I was accusing you of pally-hate. It was not my intent. It just seems that the pally represents the most extreme case and is therefore the easiest to describe.
just wondering how people would handle it if you had opposing players. Do you, as the GM, intercede if an arguement breaks out?
I have had opposing players and I typically wait quietly to see if they can work it out. If not, I will intercede for the sake of the remaining players. In nearly all of the cases, it was clear to me that one of the players was being "jerky" so the resolution was relatively easy to find.
Do you side with the player with the faction mission cause its a faction mission?
Of course, the specific situation will impact the direction, but in most cases, yes, I side with the faction mission. The main reason for this is because the PC with the mission is performing actions and anything that comes from that is on them. Usually, the opposing player is passive and will not be directly impacted by the mission. Sure you could argue that if we're talking murder and the passive player is a pally, it could be construed as an ethos violation to allow it to happen, but that is an extreme case, not the norm.
In related news, don't tell the paladin you are going to murder someone with poison.
And this seems the most obvious to me.
If your faction mission is something that is apt to be problematic for someone in your group (paladin or not, but they do make a good example since they are at the extreme side of things) then do not do the act in front of them or present them with an opportunity to disrupt.
If your character tries to get the paladin's permission to poison someone don't be surprised that they will object. In this scenario I would side with the paladin.
However, if your character does the deed in a subvert manner or just acts without asking for permission, sure the paladin will object, but now your character has completed their mission and can make up any number of excuses why it was called for.
My memory may be fuzzy (not hammer ;-),
That's FOZZY!!!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If the party also has a Paladin, is he allowed to intervene and prevent the other player from completing their faction mission? Is he supposed to just stand around and let the other party member do what they want?
Direct intervention is PvP, which is strictly forbidden in PFS. The paladin is certainly entitled to gripe (in-character and in a fasion/to a degree that doesn't spill over into IRL jerkishness) and insist, but for the character to physically intervene crosses the line into PvP.
What if two opposing factions have opposing missions (Andoran keep a guy alive, Chelaxian make sure he dies). Couldnt the player who loses the faction point claim that the other player is being a jerk by not allowing them to complete their mission?
Given that this would be a 100% no-win situation, I would hope it would never get past editing. If it did happen, I would expect the GM to create the possibility for both players to earn their points and report the situation to Paizo for correction (i.e., a new mission for one or both factions).
|
|
Sorry, if I came across sounding like I was accusing you of pally-hate. It was not my intent. It just seems that the pally represents the most extreme case and is therefore the easiest to describe.
I wasnt meaning you. I just didnt want someone who just skims posts (which these boards seem to have a huge number of) coming along and taking comments out of context, responding with GOMWTFBBQPALLYHATERSRSODUM!THEREISNUFFINRONGWITTHEMMORAN!
If the party also has a Paladin, is he allowed to intervene and prevent the other player from completing their faction mission? Is he supposed to just stand around and let the other party member do what they want?Direct intervention is PvP, which is strictly forbidden in PFS. The paladin is certainly entitled to gripe (in-character and in a fasion/to a degree that doesn't spill over into IRL jerkishness) and insist, but for the character to physically intervene crosses the line into PvP.
If the paladin was simply standing between the target and the other pc would you consider that PvP? I wouldnt. The pally wouldnt have to be physically agressive with the rogue (for example), just get in the way. If the rogue wants to get to his target, hed have to go through the pally, being pvp.
I dunno. This whole situation seems like it would just come down to how the players were handling their own behavior OOC, and not just IC.
|
|
The VCs have had conversations with Mark Moreland and I'm pretty sure that no new scenarios will have conflicting tasks.
But as Mark Granger said, don't tell the Pally your going to murder someone.
More to the point, secret missions are secret.
Once again, GMs if you feel that there is a problem with your faction goals, post your concerns in the GM board with a spoiler and the VCs, GMs and/or Paizo staff will try and help.
|
Just to note: Im not complaining about having a pally at a table. just wondering how people would handle it if you had opposing players. Do you, as the GM, intercede if an arguement breaks out?
Do you side with the player with the faction mission cause its a faction mission?
If I were playing a character who's faction mission required me to do something questionable (well at least questionable to the Paladin companion I had or the LG cleric or whatnot) I would try to do so secretively.
If the character doesn't know I'm doing it, then it doesn't matter.
|
|
Of course, the specific situation will impact the direction, but in most cases, yes, I side with the faction mission. The main reason for this is because the PC with the mission is performing actions and anything that comes from that is on them. Usually, the opposing player is passive and will not be directly impacted by the mission. Sure you could argue that if we're talking murder and the passive player is a pally, it could be construed as an ethos violation to allow it to happen, but that is an extreme case, not the norm.
Do you side with the player with the faction mission cause its a faction mission?
I might handle this a bit differently. If the character in question is trying to openly do something the Paladin doesn't think should be done, then the character with the mission will probably need to find a different avenue of approach. I'm sure a little creativity will get the job done without tweaking the Paladin too much.
|
|
You are correct. A paladin could not step in and attack that player but they can do other things to interfere. I have also seen paladins who after seeing another faction missions target attacked in cold blood spend their limited heals / spells to reverse the faction missions accomplishment. When you choose to play a Paladin you have a hard line to walk. You must make choices and follow your code, otherwise you are literally just a fighter with a lack of feats.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If the paladin was simply standing between the target and the other pc would you consider that PvP? I wouldnt. The pally wouldnt have to be physically agressive with the rogue (for example), just get in the way.
My understanding (and correct me if the Guide says otherwise, as I can't access it from here) is that you don't have to make attack rolls or cast spells to be engaging in PvP. Thus, any action taken by one player that materially affects the possibility or difficulty of another player's faction mission would be PvP.*
If the rogue wants to get to his target, hed have to go through the pally, being pvp.
I'd say that if Player A creates a situation in which the only method for Player B to complete his mission is to engage in PvP, then Player A has already engaged in PvP. Just like IRL if you deliberately taunt someone into throwing the first punch, that doesn't mean they started the fight.
*Now, there can be some clever ways around this. Assuming all players were enjoying themselves, then you could hand-wave the mechanical ramifications of Player A's interventions such that, roleplaying-wise, Player A is actively trying to stop Player B, but mechanics-wise nothing has changed. But again, that's assuming all players are cool with it, and I'd make it clear that I was handling it that way, lest Player C be watching and thinking "Holy crap, what if someone tries to stop me too?!?"
EDIT: Ninja'd like it's going out of style.
|
|
If the party also has a Paladin, is he allowed to intervene and prevent the other player from completing their faction mission? Is he supposed to just stand around and let the other party member do what they want?Direct intervention is PvP, which is strictly forbidden in PFS. The paladin is certainly entitled to gripe (in-character and in a fasion/to a degree that doesn't spill over into IRL jerkishness) and insist, but for the character to physically intervene crosses the line into PvP.
Indeed, which is why as a GM you have to adjudicate fairly.
Moral E. Biguous: <in front of the paladin> I am going to coat my blade with the vial of obvious poison and then stab the helpless shop keeper.
Paladin: Oh no you don't, I am going to stop him.
GM: Moral, you will have to do something different, because the Paladin isn't going to let that happen.
Moral E. Biguous: Fine, I use slight of hand to apply the poison, and when the Paladin isn't looking, I stab the shop keeper.
GM: Ok.
|
|
If the paladin was simply standing between the target and the other pc would you consider that PvP? I wouldnt. The pally wouldnt have to be physically agressive with the rogue (for example), just get in the way.My understanding (and correct me if the Guide says otherwise, as I can't access it from here) is that you don't have to make attack rolls or cast spells to be engaging in PvP. Thus, any action taken by one player that materially affects the possibility or difficulty of another player's faction mission would be PvP.*
If the rogue wants to get to his target, hed have to go through the pally, being pvp.I'd say that if Player A creates a situation in which the only method for Player B to complete his mission is to engage in PvP, then Player A has already engaged in PvP. Just like IRL if you deliberately taunt someone into throwing the first punch, that doesn't mean they started the fight.
*Now, there can be some clever ways around this. Assuming all players were enjoying themselves, then you could hand-wave the mechanical ramifications of Player A's interventions such that, roleplaying-wise, Player A is actively trying to stop Player B, but mechanics-wise nothing has changed. But again, that's assuming all players are cool with it, and I'd make it clear that I was handling it that way, lest Player C be watching and thinking "Holy crap, what if someone tries to stop me too?!?"
As a GM you'd have to weigh the circumstances individually of course. But if a Paladin is there, and sees something questionable, I'd basically say, "Ok player, the paladin won't let this happen, find another way."
There isn't any PvP going on, just adjudicating in a fair way so that the characters don't have to suddenly become the 'three monkeys'.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If the party also has a Paladin, is he allowed to intervene and prevent the other player from completing their faction mission? Is he supposed to just stand around and let the other party member do what they want?Direct intervention is PvP, which is strictly forbidden in PFS. The paladin is certainly entitled to gripe (in-character and in a fasion/to a degree that doesn't spill over into IRL jerkishness) and insist, but for the character to physically intervene crosses the line into PvP.
Indeed, which is why as a GM you have to adjudicate fairly.
Moral E. Biguous: <in front of the paladin> I am going to coat my blade with the vial of obvious poison and then stab the helpless shop keeper.
Paladin: Oh no you don't, I am going to stop him.
GM: Moral, you will have to do something different, because the Paladin isn't going to let that happen.
Moral E. Biguous: Fine, I use slight of hand to apply the poison, and when the Paladin isn't looking, I stab the shop keeper.
GM: Ok.
My one potential qualm with this is that (assuming the faction mission didn't already call for secrecy) adding a sleight of hand check (assuming you make him actually roll it, rather than just flavoring it) changes Moral's chances of success. Basically, the paladin (or whoever) has taken actions that materially affect Moral's ability to complete his mission. I would personally disallow that if I were GMing - I'd encourage the roleplaying of sneakiness, but I wouldn't ask Player A to succeed on extra checks at the request of Player B.
Would you agree with that?
|
|
If the party also has a Paladin, is he allowed to intervene and prevent the other player from completing their faction mission? Is he supposed to just stand around and let the other party member do what they want?Direct intervention is PvP, which is strictly forbidden in PFS. The paladin is certainly entitled to gripe (in-character and in a fasion/to a degree that doesn't spill over into IRL jerkishness) and insist, but for the character to physically intervene crosses the line into PvP.
Indeed, which is why as a GM you have to adjudicate fairly.
Moral E. Biguous: <in front of the paladin> I am going to coat my blade with the vial of obvious poison and then stab the helpless shop keeper.
Paladin: Oh no you don't, I am going to stop him.
GM: Moral, you will have to do something different, because the Paladin isn't going to let that happen.
Moral E. Biguous: Fine, I use slight of hand to apply the poison, and when the Paladin isn't looking, I stab the shop keeper.
GM: Ok.
My one potential qualm with this is that (assuming the faction mission didn't already call for secrecy) adding a sleight of hand check (assuming you make him actually roll it, rather than just flavoring it) changes Moral's chances of success. Basically, the paladin (or whoever) has taken actions that materially affect Moral's ability to complete his mission. I would personally disallow that if I were GMing - I'd encourage the roleplaying of sneakiness, but I wouldn't ask Player A to succeed on extra checks at the request of Player B.
Would you agree with that?
No, if the player is stupid enough to try this mission where the Paladin might be able to intercede, they created the situation in which it would be harder to accomplish said mission. Reap what you sow.
And if the mission is supposed to be done secretly, but it doesn't give specific mechanics (a particular DC check or whatever) to do it secretly, then the GM has to adjudicate how the character can succeed secretly given the circumstances.
My deaf oracle was concentrating on a mural and stuff, while everyone behind him was stealing things secretly. No reason for him to turn around and constantly look over his shoulder, so they were able to do so secretly without him trying to stop them (not that he would have actually tried to stop them, but you get my drift.)
If the character was around a corner or in another room, then the Paladin would have no recourse, no matter what the player of the Paladin might want. But if the Paladin is hanging out with that other character, then the other character have to figure a way to be sneaky. If that means as a GM I have to incorporate stealth or sleight of hand, that's just the way the avalanche falls my friend.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No, if the player is stupid enough to try this mission where the Paladin might be able to intercede, they created the situation in which it would be harder to accomplish said mission. Reap what you sow.
I'll go ahead and assume that you would make allowances for a player who is unfamiliar with Paladins. Similarly, may I presume that if a player who, like me, would have assumed that intervention from the paladin would be PvP and therefore prohibited, but unlike me, hasn't had the advantage of discussing this with you ahead of time, did something like this, you'd let him back up as appropriate to adjust his tactics?
And if the mission is supposed to be done secretly, but it doesn't give specific mechanics (a particular DC check or whatever) to do it secretly, then the GM has to adjudicate how the character can succeed secretly given the circumstances.
I guess I see that differently; deciding on the specifics of how to implement something that's explicitly called for (the appropriate checks to make when the need for secrecy is explicit, for instance) seems different to me than adding a completely new hurdle that's not called for by the module.
Perhaps it just seems unfair to me that having a certain type of character at your table can force you to jump through extra hoops that didn't exist before that person sat down. I guess maybe that's in the realm of personal preference, but it doesn't strike me as being very fair. In the interest of fairness, can non-paladins cause other players to need extra checks to succeed on their missions? Say I have a CG (or CN if you prefer) character on a mission outside of a city (i.e., in the wilderness) and the LG character has a mission to bring back a dangerous criminal for trial (though everyone knows he's guilty). My character would prefer to end the threat of this being directly rather than relying on laws (since he's chaotic), and on top of that, keeping him around on the way back to town puts the whole party at risk. Will you require the pally (or similar) to jump through extra hoops because my barbarian "wouldn't allow" his goal to happen?
If so, then although I don't agree with the practice, I can respect it. If not, then I don't think I could see it as fair. Maybe that's my real issue? The fact that in every example it's the paladin/cleric who gets to make everyone else jump through hoops, but never the other way around? If it does work both ways, though, I guess it's not that big of a deal.
Make sense? Did I communicate well? I got interrupted a couple of times, so let me know if there's anything weird in there.
|
|
Woot!! One of the games I ran spawned 3 Threads!! WOOT!!
;)
1. Sczarni and not being evil
2. Removing a character from play for being "Evil"
3. Faction Missions and 'Dont be a Jerk'
Actually, I didnt start this in response to your game, as I wasnt at Gencon. I started thinking about the situation after reading part of one of the other two threads though, so I guess you can lay claim to this one if youd like. Any person who has run it could do the same, though.
|
|
No, if the player is stupid enough to try this mission where the Paladin might be able to intercede, they created the situation in which it would be harder to accomplish said mission. Reap what you sow.I'll go ahead and assume that you would make allowances for a player who is unfamiliar with Paladins. Similarly, may I presume that if a player who, like me, would have assumed that intervention from the paladin would be PvP and therefore prohibited, but unlike me, hasn't had the advantage of discussing this with you ahead of time, did something like this, you'd let him back up as appropriate to adjust his tactics?
And if the mission is supposed to be done secretly, but it doesn't give specific mechanics (a particular DC check or whatever) to do it secretly, then the GM has to adjudicate how the character can succeed secretly given the circumstances.I guess I see that differently; deciding on the specifics of how to implement something that's explicitly called for (the appropriate checks to make when the need for secrecy is explicit, for instance) seems different to me than adding a completely new hurdle that's not called for by the module.
Perhaps it just seems unfair to me that having a certain type of character at your table can force you to jump through extra hoops that didn't exist before that person sat down. I guess maybe that's in the realm of personal preference, but it doesn't strike me as being very fair. In the interest of fairness, can non-paladins cause other players to need extra checks to succeed on their missions? Say I have a CG (or CN if you prefer) character on a mission outside of a city (i.e., in the wilderness) and the LG character has a mission to bring back a dangerous criminal for trial (though everyone knows he's guilty). My character would prefer to end the threat of this being directly rather than relying on laws (since he's chaotic), and on top of that, keeping him around on the way back to town puts the whole...
In some of your other posts you've indicated you want the GM to spell out what is and isn't acceptable or how they'd handle issues at their table.
That just isn't possible to do, and then also actually run the module.
As a player, you just have to trust that as a GM I will take care of you, as well as take care of the integrity of the module and the integrity of the campaign.
|
|
Stuff
I hope my post didn't come off as me controlling the players as that was not the intention. I was illustrating that sometimes, the players cannot come to an agreement regardless as to the conversation occurring in or out of character. Because of the limitations of time, I cannot just allow it to continue indefinitely. This is especially important now that one PP is tied to completing the scenario goal.
I will jump in when either (1) the time is becoming an issue, or (2) it is clear that neither player is going to relent. Unfortunately, that means I may have to rule in one player's favor or another using my perspective and interpretation of the situation. I don't see much else a GM can do. My best advice to players is to be flexible and compromise so your GM does not have to make a ruling that either or both of you might not be happy with.
Woot!! One of the games I ran spawned 3 Threads!! WOOT!!
;)
1. Sczarni and not being evil
2. Removing a character from play for being "Evil"
3. Faction Missions and 'Dont be a Jerk'
Its like we caused a 500 post pile up.
You ran a great game. And thanks for making this an issue that could be on the boards, and not at the table. I'm not happy with the situation, but I was very happy with the way you handled it and let us players handle it as well.
On topic:
Playing a paladin that watches other characters to make sure they aren't being nefarious is being a jerk. Ignoring obvious problems is not reasonable, but not letting the shady guy out of your sight because he is shady, that's just mean. Paladins who can't give other pathfinders a little bit of room are on the short list of soon-to-be ex-pathfinders. Even the paladins are expected to follow the basic rules and order of the organization, and constantly interfering with or harassing other pathfinders isn't a good way to do it. I agree that the player who is up to no good should be making reasonable attempts to do it stealthily, but bringing a character to the table that meaningfully increases the challenge for others to complete their faction mission is just tacky.
How would the Andorans feel if I brought a LN fighter/inquisitor "hellknight" to the table, and said that because it was in my character's code that I would not allow them to do altruistic things if they broke laws? Good is fine, but chaos is right out, and since you look like one of those freedom loving dolts, I'm going to keep my eye on you and ensure that you don't sneak something by me.
Everyone in their right mind would say that my above character is disruptive, because he is. That is why I don't play him. I'm not saying that there is no room for a paladin, but it should be the player of the paladin that makes it reasonable for that character to be present, not everyone else at the table. Not every paladin is going to have time to waste policing their allies, play one of the ones that is busy actually being a hero.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also you need to take into consideration the toll on the paladin if he just openly ignored your murder. Woops there goes his powers. Is the rogue going to pay for his atonement? It's a balancing act. The GM has to be able to adjudicate something that works for both players.
I still find this odd:
We're playing in an OrgPlay setup in which that Cloak of Resistance you found will vanish from your hands and then appear - in infinite numbers - on the shelves of every shop you ever visit in any town of at least 5k people; an obvious (and radical) departure from reality, common sense, and the rules of the game; and we're all okay with it, because it's in the name of smooth, cooperative play. Yet in all three of these "Dragnmoon-inspired" threads, most people feel compelled to adhere to alignment and paladin code rules, even if a deviation would aid the smooth, cooperative play that the loot rules are there to maintain.I just don't get that part. :P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In some of your other posts you've indicated you want the GM to spell out what is and isn't acceptable or how they'd handle issues at their table.
Unless there's something I'm forgetting/was unclear about, that was only in situations where the GM plans to deviate from written expectations (rules, criteria for earning PP, etc). I certainly don't expect the GM to explain how to play PF/PFS - I expect the players to have read what they need to read in order to be on top of things, just as I expect the GM to have read the module (barring extraneous circumstances, obviously). The only things I would prefer a GM to spell out at the beginning is any ways in which what I have in my hands in print from Paizo is going to be different from how things go in the game. I don't think that's unreasonable to expect, especially in organized play.
As a player, you just have to trust that as a GM I will take care of you, as well as take care of the integrity of the module and the integrity of the campaign.
...I felt really torn when I read that. After a bit of thought, I think I figured out why, though I don't think I should say here. (Nothing about you, though.)
|
|
Woot!! One of the games I ran spawned 3 Threads!! WOOT!!
;)
1. Sczarni and not being evil
2. Removing a character from play for being "Evil"
3. Faction Missions and 'Dont be a Jerk'
Maybe you should be a better GM and then these "arguments" wouldn't occur. Sheesh
:-)
Wait, I thought the scale of a good GM was by how many arguments you start?... DOH!!!! ;)
|
If the party also has a Paladin, is he allowed to intervene and prevent the other player from completing their faction mission? Is he supposed to just stand around and let the other party member do what they want?Direct intervention is PvP, which is strictly forbidden in PFS. The paladin is certainly entitled to gripe (in-character and in a fasion/to a degree that doesn't spill over into IRL jerkishness) and insist, but for the character to physically intervene crosses the line into PvP.
Indeed, which is why as a GM you have to adjudicate fairly.
Moral E. Biguous: <in front of the paladin> I am going to coat my blade with the vial of obvious poison and then stab the helpless shop keeper.
Paladin: Oh no you don't, I am going to stop him.
GM: Moral, you will have to do something different, because the Paladin isn't going to let that happen.
Moral E. Biguous: Fine, I use slight of hand to apply the poison, and when the Paladin isn't looking, I stab the shop keeper.
GM: Ok.
My one potential qualm with this is that (assuming the faction mission didn't already call for secrecy) adding a sleight of hand check (assuming you make him actually roll it, rather than just flavoring it) changes Moral's chances of success. Basically, the paladin (or whoever) has taken actions that materially affect Moral's ability to complete his mission. I would personally disallow that if I were GMing - I'd encourage the roleplaying of sneakiness, but I wouldn't ask Player A to succeed on extra checks at the request of Player B.
Would you agree with that?
No, if the player is stupid enough to try this mission where the Paladin might be able to intercede, they created the situation in which it would be harder to accomplish said mission. Reap what you sow.
And if the mission is supposed to be done secretly, but it doesn't give specific mechanics (a particular DC check or whatever) to do it...
I agree with this assessment. There are ways to make that goal without drawing a check (going back to "get something I dropped" after the party begins to move on, for example); if a player chooses to do things in an uncreative and difficult fashion, that's the player's problem, not the GM's.
|
|
Woot!! One of the games I ran spawned 3 Threads!! WOOT!!
;)
1. Sczarni and not being evil
2. Removing a character from play for being "Evil"
3. Faction Missions and 'Dont be a Jerk'
Its like we caused a 500 post pile up.
You ran a great game. And thanks for making this an issue that could be on the boards, and not at the table. I'm not happy with the situation, but I was very happy with the way you handled it and let us players handle it as well.
On topic:
Playing a paladin that watches other characters to make sure they aren't being nefarious is being a jerk. Ignoring obvious problems is not reasonable, but not letting the shady guy out of your sight because he is shady, that's just mean. Paladins who can't give other pathfinders a little bit of room are on the short list of soon-to-be ex-pathfinders. Even the paladins are expected to follow the basic rules and order of the organization, and constantly interfering with or harassing other pathfinders isn't a good way to do it. I agree that the player who is up to no good should be making reasonable attempts to do it stealthily, but bringing a character to the table that meaningfully increases the challenge for others to complete their faction mission is just tacky.How would the Andorans feel if I brought a LN fighter/inquisitor "hellknight" to the table, and said that because it was in my character's code that I would not allow them to do altruistic things if they broke laws? Good is fine, but chaos is right out, and since you look like one of those freedom loving dolts, I'm going to keep my eye on you and ensure that you don't sneak something by me.
Everyone in their right mind would say that my above character is disruptive, because he is. That is why I don't play him. I'm not saying that there is no room for a paladin, but it should be the player of the paladin that makes it reasonable for that character to be present, not everyone else at the table. Not every paladin is going to have time to...
Mainly I agree with you. I always hated as a player when the Paladins would become lawful stupid or lawful annoying. And this isn’t what, as a GM, I would foster. But rather if all the characters are hanging out after a battle deciding what to do, or if literally right in front of the Paladin the shady character decides to do something nefarious, then the player of the Paladin deserves the right to play their Paladin as well.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
if a player chooses to do things in an uncreative and difficult fashion
I don't recall anyone suggesting that a player choosing to be difficult should be unopposed. Rather, the talk was about if someone's simply doing what they're supposed to and a conflict comes up as a side effect. I.e., when conflict arises from when a player's mission is "Do X" and they do X, not when the mission is "Do X" and they find a deliberately difficult way to go about doing X.
|
|
most people feel compelled to adhere to alignment and paladin code rules, even if a deviation would aid the smooth, cooperative play that the loot rules are there to maintain.
I just don't get that part. :P
Pallys have been notoriously annoying to have in your group for 40 years, you can't expect people to just give that up, can you? :P
I don't recall anyone suggesting that a player choosing to be difficult should be unopposed. Rather, the talk was about if someone's simply doing what they're supposed to and a conflict comes up as a side effect. I.e., when conflict arises from when a player's mission is "Do X" and they do X, not when the mission is "Do X" and they find a deliberately difficult way to go about doing X.
The talk there was about whether a a GM should allow one player to penalize another with an extra skill check. In the end, the first player isn't really penalizing the second, the second player is penalizing themself by choosing a solution that creates conflict and requires a check.
In reality, the conflict in the example is two players "not playing nice", rather than just one; in my game, if the two of them want to go at it like that, I'm not going to intervene; I rarely do in RP conflicts like that. It will likely work out later when the Pally needs someone to do a DC-impossible check to get his Fame point, and the Rogue refuses (or sneakily purposely fails the check after getting other players to roll to assist). What goes around, comes around - no GM intervention necessary.
|
|
Wait, I thought the scale of a good GM was by how many arguments you start?... DOH!!!! ;)
I've always based it on a points system. One point per level of the PC you kill, with a 2-point bonus if it's a friend's PC or campaign organizer. (No double-dipping if it's a friend who's a campaign organizer.)
|
|
I hope this doesn’t come off as arrogant or insulting to all the wonderful GM’s in PFS, but I felt the need to clear the air with all the nit-pickers out there wanting some explanation : “But what about my situation, your explanation of the other situation would screw me over… bla bla bla.”
My view as to my responsibilities as a GM:
1) Make sure the players have fun.
2) Maintain the integrity of, in the following order: the campaign, game, world*
a. *World can mean Scenario in this case, especially if players and/or GM are not 100% familiar with Golarion.
3) Make sure the players have fun.
4) Prep the module and make sure the players have fun.
What you can gather about the above, is no matter the circumstance, I will try to make sure every player has a good time, as long as the players allow me to let them have a good time. There are always those players who do their best to make things miserable for the GM, and those are the players’ who’s characters I try to kill.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I hope this doesn’t come off as arrogant or insulting to all the wonderful GM’s in PFS, but I felt the need to clear the air with all the nit-pickers out there wanting some explanation : “But what about my situation, your explanation of the other situation would screw me over… bla bla bla.”
My view as to my responsibilities as a GM:
1) Make sure the players have fun.
2) Maintain the integrity of, in the following order: the campaign, game, world*
a. *World can mean Scenario in this case, especially if players and/or GM are not 100% familiar with Golarion.
3) Make sure the players have fun.
4) Prep the module and make sure the players have fun.
What you can gather about the above, is no matter the circumstance, I will try to make sure every player has a good time, as long as the players allow me to let them have a good time. There are always those players who do their best to make things miserable for the GM, and those are the players’ who’s characters I try to kill.
Sounds good. :)
After three days of discussion, I realize only today that I seem to have trust issues in this area, through no fault of yours (or anyone else I've argued with this week). My apologies.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
there is a mod that I am running this Sunday with conflicting faction missions.
(from the Judges write up on the Faction Missions at the end of the mod)
Cheliax faction gets 1 AP for captureing the BigBadGuy or any of his crew.
Qadira Faction gets 1 AP for "if a PC from the Qadira Faction scores the killing blow " against the BBG.in reading the faction missions given to the players I figure I can work around it - but I can see two players facing off
Cheliax player "you killed my prisoner? Huh?"
Qadira player "ah... wasn't me, must of been one of them Adorian guys over there sahib...) roll bluff.
Well, at least that leaves you room for killing the BBEG and capturing a crewmate, thus letting both players get their points.