erian_7 |
For the older scenarios where we are to use one of the original five missions as stand-ins for the new factions, is the GM authorized to modify the faction mission in order to better align with a new faction? I am specifically wondering about the Silver Crusade, as some of the Andoran missions present situations that are counter to the Lawful Good nature of this new faction. As an example:
We had some friction at our last game as one Andoran wanted to kill a captured foe (the other Andoran was against this but wouldn't intervene) and the Silver Crusade character disagreed. The other two characters (both Osirion) disagreed with the killing as well. I believe simply tweaking the missions will allow everyone to continue having a good time without character, and eventually player, conflict. Otherwise the merciless nature of the Andoran missions versus the Silver Crusade is going to cause no end of conflict, I think, for these older scenarios.
Note that I don't aim to turn this into another alignment debate--there's already been plenty of discussion for that in the General PFS forum...I just want to know if this is within a GM's ability for PFS, perhaps as part of the Creative Solutions option.
Mark Garringer |
For the older scenarios where we are to use one of the original five missions as stand-ins for the new factions, is the GM authorized to modify the faction mission in order to better align with a new faction?
No, you are not. Run them as written. Players may choose to complete their mission or not.
erian_7 |
And when the Silver Crusade character stops the Andoran character, what then? To be clear, in the last mission the Andoran (a Neutral druid) took the prisoner, slit his throat, then cut off his head as a trophy. The Silver Crusade character (a paladin) was not present at the time, but has stated this will not happen again.
Basically, the scenario I was worried about over in the big alignment thread is happening just as I feared. Note that I'm not running The Shadow Gambit yet--we're due to play it in October--but this issue will come to a head and I at present don't see any way other than changing the faction mission to avoid the conflict. The Silver Crusade player can easily stop the Andoran power-wise, and now will be watching that character constantly around any prisoners.
I'm looking for viable tools to use here, something that doesn't tell the Andoran "sorry, no prestige for you" or tell the paladin "sorry, your code is overruled by the faction mission." Neither option is going to result in the players liking PFS overmuch, and we don't have a huge PFS presence here as it is. The scenario itself already offers up the alternate means I suggest, all that is needed is a rewording of the faction mission.
Dane Pitchford |
Personally, I'd question the act of slitting a prisoner's throat and removing his head as a trophy, in order to fulfill an Andoran faction mission, its entirety, and in my experience the vast majority of Andoran players I've encountered (not just Paladins or Silver Crusade members) would have issues with that tactic, though I'll admit to not being sure of which mission you're speaking of, so I can't be entirely certain what it was asking for.
But, that's a bit off-track for the question, and I digress.
What Mark said is accurate, and that sort of situation is unfortunately sticky. In certain missions (such as a particular Andoran mission that involves assassination), you'd run into that problem with LG characters at the very least, especially Paladins, regardless of their faction. If the faction mission goes against some fundamental aspect of your character, there's not much you can do, and the GM really can't alter the missions to try and circumvent this.
erian_7 |
So, any advice on what to do when the paladin stops the druid?
For the previous mission, killing the target was mandatory to fulfill the wording, so slitting his throat (or whatever other flavor text one wants to use for a coup de grâce) was mandatory for the mission since he did not die in combat. Taking the head was added on and could be stopped without affecting the mission.
The unfortunate thing is so far every Andoran mission has been the most focused on killing targets by whatever means, so my current expectation is that this conflict will come up in nearly every scenario. Perhaps we've just had bad luck in picking scenarios, but if that trend continues it's basically like telling the paladin "sorry, no prestige for you" when simply rewording the mission would have the same end result (elimination of a bad guy) but with happy characters and players all around.
I just checked the scenarios we have played or have line up for the next three months. Of the five, four require the Andoran to kill one or more targets by whatever means necessary.
Dane Pitchford |
I suppose it depends on the reasoning for killing the target, really. Paladins, by and large, shouldn't have an issue with killing an enemy if they're clearly evil. The problem lies when things get murky, or when the target surrenders. At that point, the Paladin (in most cases anyway) feels duty-bound to safeguard the captive until they can be turned over to the proper authorities, right?
It's definitely not an easy issue to arbitrate. The thing that bothered me about the aforementioned assassination mission was that, not only was it requiring characters to engage in the underhanded tactic of hiring an assassin (something most LG characters, and even most -good- characters I've run it for have had issue with), but it really gives no reason as to why you're even having this man killed, other than that he's Chelaxian, which...really isn't a good enough reason. To top it all off, you'd already taken the time to spread nasty rumors about the guy around town, so the second mission makes your first kinda...pointless. So yes, some of these missions are...well, -bad-, for lack of a better word for them.
Anyway, I'm off on a tangent again, and I apologize. My advice for running missions like that is, rather than altering the faction mission, try to enforce that the target they're going after really is evil, if at all possible. If it comes down to a fight, make them fight to the death rather than surrender, if it makes sense for the character they've been sent to kill. It takes some doing, but I think it is possible to, in some cases at least, twist things around so that the Paladin's code is satisfied, and they still accomplish the mission.
Of course, I'm still bugged by the whole "killing a captive and taking his head as a trophy" thing, but that's treading into "evil acts" territory, lol. I blame it on my own LG sensibilities coming to the fore :)
As for what to do when the paladin stops the druid, that's hard to say. I don't know the players you're dealing with, and I think this is the sort of thing that has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Talk to them, get some understanding of where each character is coming from (and try to keep it civil of course. We're all here to have fun, after all). And remember, for the most part, it's assumed you don't get full prestige from every single scenario, so if you miss one on occasion, well...that's really okay.
Andrew Christian |
So, any advice on what to do when the paladin stops the druid?
For the previous mission, killing the target was mandatory to fulfill the wording, so slitting his throat (or whatever other flavor text one wants to use for a coup de grâce) was mandatory for the mission since he did not die in combat. Taking the head was added on and could be stopped without affecting the mission.
The unfortunate thing is so far every Andoran mission has been the most focused on killing targets by whatever means, so my current expectation is that this conflict will come up in nearly every scenario. Perhaps we've just had bad luck in picking scenarios, but if that trend continues it's basically like telling the paladin "sorry, no prestige for you" when simply rewording the mission would have the same end result (elimination of a bad guy) but with happy characters and players all around.
I just checked the scenarios we have played or have line up for the next three months. Of the five, four require the Andoran to kill one or more targets by whatever means necessary.
Well first of all there is no PvP.
The Druid has already proved he can do things behind the Paladin's back. So it shouldn't be too difficult to do so again.
Additionally, one of the tenets of being a pathfinder is cooperation.
Now the Paladin is fully in his right to stop a heinous act from happening. There is no reason to allow the Druid to cut off the guy's head as a trophy. But there is also not much of a reason to stop the druid from killing the guy either.
That's the crux of the situation, and it actually really does tie back into the alignment argument. Is it against a Paladin's code to not kill a surrendered enemy, even if the enemy is blatantly evil?
Mark Garringer |
So, any advice on what to do when the paladin stops the druid?
I don't believe the Paladin can really stop the Druid, nor should you allow courses of action that head to these kinds of conclusions from either party. They are both working for the same PP, and if the Paladin doesn't want to earn his by doing the mission that's his choice. I doubt that should the Druid manage to complete the mission without him that he'd decline the point off his Chronicle.
Besides:
Feral |
Some characters don't see Evil as kill-on-sight.
The paladin should refuse to take part, shake his head in disgust at the druid, and then wear his missed PA as a badge of honor.
Also, if I were the paladin, I would make it a point to remind the druid how strongly I disagreed with what he had done and how no soul was beyond redemption. If the druid was vehement in his murdering I would find something else to do with my standard actions in the future other than Lay on Hands him.
erian_7 |
The problem we've faced (and I suspect will continue) is that by the Pathfinder rules it's pretty easy for targets to drop but not die during combat. After the battle, the NG cleric (a reformed Chelaxian half-orc that opposes "the devil's ways") is stabilizing everyone, the LG paladin is doing the same, etc. So we end up in battles where the bad guys are defeated but not killed. They then take the prisoners, interrogate them for information, etc. If the target of an Andoran mission happens to be in the group, then we come into the problem with the paladin not allowing the prisoner to be killed. We avoided it on the first Andoran kill mission as the target died from a crit in combat. The second mission (which we just finished) the target dropped to negatives but didn't die. The cleric was standing right by the target and so stabilized him after combat even knowing this was a target for his mission (the druid wasn't close enough to kill him immediately). So then we ended up with a prisoner that the druid wanted to kill and the paladin wouldn't have allowed. Note that the druid is not stealthy or sly--she killed the guy right out in the open but the paladin was looking into another room.
It sounds like the best thing is to fudge the dice, HP, etc. at the end of the combat and just declare the target dies in combat? Is that sort of fudging allowed? The paladin does not agree with the view that all Evil enemies deserve death--she considers that to be an Evil viewpoint--but is okay with opponents falling in combat. The cleric is somewhat the same as he's focused on redemption (since he himself was redeemed).
But if it comes down to it again and we've got a prisoner that is supposed to die per the Andoran mission, is it okay for the paladin to stop the druid if the druid tries to kill the guy right out in the open? Note again that no other party member would support the druid, even the other Andoran. So is that a case where the Andoran has to be okay with not getting the PP if she can't be sneaky about killing the prisoner?
A thought also came to me that it might be an even better solution to see if the druid will change to another faction, as the remaining Andoran is more in line with the Silver Crusade views so we'd minimize conflict. Maybe recommending the Grand Lodge since they are supposed to be more in the Neutral "do your job as a Pathfinder" role and so far I haven't seen their replacement missions to be focused on killing targets.
erian_7 |
The paladin could ask to face the foe in combat, which should meet both character's wishes.
That's a good one, I'll suggest that as well.
My driving issue is that of the players (so, the actual people, not the characters) only one would actively support the characters killing a prisoner (since all the other characters are Good) so I see this creating some bad blood/animosity as we progress. This last game was obviously uncomfortable for all involved and so I want to be proactive in getting in front of that issue while staying PFS-legal if possible.
Mark Garringer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like the best thing is to fudge the dice, HP, etc. at the end of the combat and just declare the target dies in combat? Is that sort of fudging allowed?
Since nobody at my tables ever tries to go to this length, I guess that means there are a lot of people bleeding to death in my games :)
It should would be a shame if the Druid's animal companion got spooked by the prisoner's actions somehow and ate his face.
Ultimately it sounds like you have player personality conflicts, translating into character personality conflicts which you should address so everyone can get on the same page. It sounds suspiciously like someone is being a jerk and using 'role play' as a cover.
erian_7 |
Since nobody at my tables ever tries to go to this length, I guess that means there are a lot of people bleeding to death in my games :)
It should would be a shame if the Druid's animal companion got spooked by the prisoner's actions somehow and ate his face.
Ultimately it sounds like you have player personality conflicts, translating into character personality conflicts which you should address so everyone can get on the same page. It sounds suspiciously like someone is being a jerk and using 'role play' as a cover.
Unfortunately the druid doesn't have an animal companion (took a cleric domain instead) so no help there. That is a good one for later thought, though, on the sneaky front.
For the latter bit, it looks like all the players except one are on the "don't kill prisoners" side. So, does the majority rule in this case and is the druid player then in the "jerk" category? I'll definitely be talking to all the players about this situation and I'm hoping this thread will give me options and concepts to aid in that discussion. It's possible that the druid player will just relent on her position and move on (or perhaps change factions). I don't think all of the other players, however, will shift views to support the druid.
Theocrat |
While I generally think that the players and GM should make the overall game and module the best that it can be for the Real Life Society, and if needed trump the rules, in this case I don't think the GM can trump the rules.
Because Prestige is so important to the RL Society as well as the game Society it is vital to track it and report it as the module requests. It is because the Andoran faction was so dominant that it needed to be separated to give other factions a chance.
RAW states that if the mission is for Andoran and Silver Crusade (or any of the dual factions for earlier scenarios), and any member of either faction completes the missions as required all will get the prestige.
In this case, if a Silver Crusade member knows this is going to be a problem, they should state this with their fellow SC/A members that they believe they will be unable to complete the mission. As such something might be worked out. Additionally, the factions are 'secret' as well - if the players wish them to be. Thus, the players that are OK with slitting a throat can attempt to do so by a note to the GM. Some GM's might blurt out that the character is attempting this and allow other players to stop it. I think that the player should be clear that his intentions to slit the throat should be as covert as possible.
If all the players believe that their leaders are asking them to do something that they cannot by their code of conduct, they may wish to look at their code a bit differently. If they are Lawful anything - the laws of their lands and that of Absalom might dictate that they are within their legal rights to provide justice, as that is what it is considered. Thus killing the miscreant is legal and just. By not doing so they may be breaking their own code and the laws that they have sworn to uphold. However, a soldier should always question possibly illegal and immoral acts. Slitting a prisoners throat might qualify as illegal and immoral, but killing the miscreant because Major Colsten/SC leader says so would be an order that should be carried out in a lawful and just manner, like a beheading.
There are reasons death by combat and justice are different that murder or assassination. Killing the miscreat as a prisoner would be murder, killing them as a political statement would be assassination while combat could be determined to be self defense and of course justice is determined by the winners.
I love Lawful, as long as you are following the laws of 1) where you are from (Absalom for PFS since that's where the Grand Lodge is located) 2) The laws of the land in which you hail from (this could be a faction but also if you're Qadirian supporting Scarni you could call the Qadirian laws legal) 3) where you are currently located (and this could be thre real tricky part, see below) 4) what you determine to be lawful laws. If you lawyer your way, you can be even more free than a chaotic alignment. If you are in Issrein, killing goblins and trolls is murder, while in Geb undead are citizens and humans taste like chicken.
Lawful Neutral - Follow the One True Path
Theocrat Issak
Gabrielle d'Apcher |
Only members of the Andoran Collective would be so unoriginal as to be unable to solve this sort of problem on their own. It's so sad to see...
I weep for all of those who cannot earn every bit of fame in the world. Someone pass me a handkerchief, quickly now, for I am unable to contain my sorrow for them.
-Gabrielle d'Apcher
erian_7 |
Only members of the Andoran Collective would be so unoriginal as to be unable to solve this sort of problem on their own. It's so sad to see...
I weep for all of those who cannot earn every bit of fame in the world. Someone pass me a handkerchief, quickly now, for I am unable to contain my sorrow for them.
-Gabrielle d'Apcher
A jesting post, of course, but ironically the paladin actually began as Taldoran and readily switched to the Silver Crusade when it became available.
erian_7 |
erian_7 wrote:A jesting post, of course, but ironically the paladin actually began as Taldoran and readily switched to the Silver Crusade when it became available.*Gabi purses her lips*
He willingly serves a knight of Sarenrae? HEATHEN!
-Gabrielle d'Apcher
Well, she actually, and Shelyn is considered primary in all things for her, though Sarenrae is generally acceptable, yes...
We have a very fire-focused bunch, oddly enough, what with the paladin taking her favored class alternate for fire resistance, a pyromaniac gnome alchemist (from Katapesh, so favorable to Sarenrae), a cleric of Sarenrae (the former Chelaxian), a monk of Sarenrae (from Osirion), and of course the druid (who took the fire domain instead of an animal companion). So, Sarenrae is indeed generally in a prominent position in the group!
Enevhar Aldarion |
The problem we've faced (and I suspect will continue) is that by the Pathfinder rules it's pretty easy for targets to drop but not die during combat. After the battle, the NG cleric (a reformed Chelaxian half-orc that opposes "the devil's ways") is stabilizing everyone, the LG paladin is doing the same, etc. So we end up in battles where the bad guys are defeated but not killed.....
This is the part I do not get. Does the rule book specifically say that enemies are not dead as soon as they hit negative HP? Maybe the way my groups have always done it has been nothing more than a house rule, but ever since 1st edition, whichever rules existed that let PCs go down to whatever negative HP before being dead was applied only to PCs and friendly NPCs and never enemies or monsters. -1 or -100 was just as dead for the enemy.
Edit:
But regardless of what the rule as written actually is, you are the GM. If an enemy needs to die and he drops in combat, then he is dead. Players should not be tracking enemy HP or even knowing how much HP someone has.
erian_7 |
This is the part I do not get. Does the rule book specifically say that enemies are not dead as soon as they hit negative HP? Maybe the way my groups have always done it has been nothing more than a house rule, but ever since 1st edition, whichever rules existed that let PCs go down to whatever negative HP before being dead was applied only to PCs and friendly NPCs and never enemies or monsters. -1 or -100 was just as dead for the enemy.
That's most definitely a house rule--other than Undead and Constructs pretty much all other creature types live past 0 HP just like PCs. At higher levels, with more damage output from PCs, it's easier to kill targets. But at lower levels, and especially when facing a creature with 14 Con or more, a one-shot kill is pretty hard for most characters (barring the fully combat optimized) even when the target is at or close to 1 HP.
Thorkull |
As a GM, I've always assumed that all bad guys are dead when they're below 0 hp, unless:
1. They have regeneration or some other effect that will bring them back to life automagically.
2. The PCs are making an effort to keep them alive (doing subdual damage, using nonlethal disabling spells, etc.)
3. The good guys (NPCs) have healing capability that could reasonably return one or more of them to combat effective status.
This saves me the hassle of tracking hp for combatants that are most likely going to be down for the count anyway, and results in fewer moments when the PCs have to deal with all the dog-catching-car moments.
Chris Mortika RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |
Thorkull |
Thorkull, it's important to keep track for (a) clerics who recklessly channel positive energy while freshly fallen foes within 30', and (b) clerics who are looking for fodder for death knell.
Point. Condition number 4 to check for:
"You're playing a cleric? Do you have selective channel?"
ElyasRavenwood |
I just finished running both the shadow gambit and the two fold demise.
With my group of regulars, they had a difficult time with mr Pratt the bard. He almost had the PCs, with his fear spell, his suggestion, his glitter dust, his invisibility etc....but they eventually cornered him, and killed him. I had both a Silver Crusade faction paladin, and an Andoran Fighter in the group. I guess the guy playing the paladin didn't protest too much because there was no prisoner dilema, the bard went down in combat, with his weapon drawn.
Perhaps another solution, would be to turn the bard over to either the Arodocs or Dakar's comerse league.....they would kill the bard. Perhaps that is one way, the silver crusade character can be happy because the trouble maker was handed over to the powers that be, and the andoran PC gets his faction mission completed.
erian_7 |
Yes, I noted that earlier as one of the possible solutions in those particular scenarios--that was actually the foundation for my asking if the faction mission can be changed. If it simply stated "capture, if possible, and turn over to the authorities" that greatly alleviates the conflict. As it stands, the missions state "kill at all costs" (even though turning them over to the authorities is noted as a possible solution late in the scenario). That's the type of change I'm talking about--tweaking the mission so it stays in line with the Lawful Good aspects of the Silver Crusade by, when possible, respecting local authorities. The problem will come later, I think, when the party is in a scenario that doesn't specify this option. If it's permissible to allow this solution when reasonable, and that can be communicated to the players so they know the "kill at all costs" isn't actually mandatory by their own hands, then that is enough tweaking of the faction missions to alleviate most of the conflict.
Nani Z. Obringer |
I agree with Mark that this seems in large part to be a player conflict, and not just an in-game conflict. I think the best thing to do is to talk with your players out of character, and let them know that the spirit of PFS is such that everyone is sitting at the table to have fun. Ask them to play together in a respectful manner, and remind them that PvP is not permitted in any way shape or form. While you cannot alter the content of the faction mission, keep in mind you are the final arbiter of whether a player fulfills the PA requirement or not. there are a lot of threads on how strict you should be on faction missions, so I won't get into it, but as a GM, YOU control the table.
I agree with posters that you should make your best effort as a GM to give them as easy of an snwer as you can: the BBEG acts in a clearly unrepentant evil fashion. Additionally, ruling on whether the BBEG dies in combat is fully within your purview.
Part of being a GM is making those calls and handling player conflict, for better or for worse. It sounds like you are a GM that cares about everyone having a good game, which is the most important thing. Do what you feel is right. If this can be handled by fudging a few hit points, then no problem. But if this is a problem that escalates past that, then talking to your players about faction changes or changes to the group composition are worth thinking about. I have had to ask players to consider their attitudes before returning to the next game. Do what is best for the happiness of the group as a whole.
Andrew Christian |
Without knowing the people involved or the dynamics of the group (because we all know that people inside and outside of a particular group can act differently) it is hard to tell exactly what the issue is.
But I see a couple possibilities:
1) The group as a whole tends to have an alpha/omega dynamic where one person is dominant, and one is not (whether they like it or think so or not) and all those in the middle side with the dominant one. What this causes is a group to create situations to humiliate, destabilize, bring down, or insult the least dominant. And as such, you see the situation where the entire group goes against the wishes of the one, even if it means he will not get to satisfy his faction mission. (caveat: The Druid in question in the OP went way overboard when he cut off the head as a trophy in my mind).
2) One member of the group is somewhat tolerated by the rest, as he tends to have a very odd or morbid sense of humor, and tries to do things to get a rise out of everyone. Then gets self-righteous when they react negatively to over-the-top behavior.
In either case, it has to be made expressly clear to both sides of an argument, regardless of the dynamic that is happening, that in PFS, pathfinders are required to cooperate with one another.
And what that means is, that players who play together a lot, should think about creating a group of characters that will play nice with one another as well. Or if not, at least play nice with each other when character arguments happen.
The moment the Druid indicated he was going to savagely slit the throat and lop off the head as a trophy, I'd have said, "well you can certainly do that, but the Paladin isn't going to be happy at how brutal and dishonorable those actions are, and will have every right to refuse to travel with your Druid in the future."
If the Druid persists then, then let the Paladin declare that he won't travel with him anymore. If the rest of the characters agree with the sentiment, then the player of the Druid will need to bring a different character to play with those characters.
If, on the other hand, the Paladin and Cleric refuse to allow the bad guy to be killed, then remind them that the bad guy is very heinous, and that they have a right to kill him, even if he's surrendered. If they refuse to do this even so, because they want to roleplay their lawful good alignment to an extreme level of fundamentalism, that's fine. But the Druid and other characters have a right to declare that they won't travel with them anymore. And if the majority feel that the fundamentalism is too much, then the players of the Paladin and good Cleric may have to bring different characters to play with the others.
Or they need to find a different way to roleplay their lawful goodness.
I find it strange, that in a campaign where one of the rules for characters, is to cooperate with one another, that people try to create characters that don't play well with others, for whatever reasons.
This includes the sadist Druid as much as the Fundamentalist Paladin.
The Grandfather |
First off players are not permitted to interfere with the missions of other players.
Secundly I think the roleplaying opportunity this gives to Andoren/Crusaders is terrific. Have them argue a bit back and forth the morals of the mission.
If it appers the Crusader is unwilling to listen to reasonable arguments have W.P. settle the matter.
Either he is conscious and restrained or unconscious, but suddenly comes too. W.P. has overheard the argument. Let him make statements that portray him as a ruthless monster.
"I murdered your Pathfinder friend, and loved every moment of it. My only regret is that it could not have dragged out a couple of days more."
"Yes by all means turn me over to the Duskwardens. I have friends everywhere. This city is as corrupt as the gutters of Dis. When am set free I will seek you out... but only after I have killed every man, woman and child that have ever shown you kindness."
Within moments you can make the most pious paladin lob his head of in the name of the greater good. Even human NPCs can be so thoroughly corrupt and despicable that ANY player will kill them. W. P. has been marked for death by Maldris Colson... there has to be a reason for that.
EDIT: Hell. I bet you can make a paladin make a trophy of his head.
deusvult |
I'm still new to PFS and newer still to GMing PFS. As such I've only read thru 1 scenario, the one I plan to run soon.
In that one scenario however, I noticed that a faction quest (as presented on the handout) is utterly unachievable. No, really. Not exaggerating. However, the module says to award that pc the faction prestige anyway if they take this other half-assed action that imo no reasonable player would bother to take.
So when Paizo presents you with an unviable faction mission, it seems you should be allowed change it yourself to provide a PC with the possibility of actually completing it.
Mark Garringer |
So when Paizo presents you with an unviable faction mission, it seems you should be allowed change it yourself to provide a PC with the possibility of actually completing it.
No, you should not. These are neither gimmies nor is the expectation that you'll get 100% of them.
Players are heavily motivated to complete their missions and will go to great and crazy lengths to do so. You'll be surprised. Run them as written.
deusvult |
I get you in theory.
But in practice, if because of a fault on the editing staff at Paizo, a task is impossible but a seperate nonsensical task that a rationally thinking player would rightfully assume would NOT give credit is written as giving credit...
that's when I'm saying a GM should be allowed to excercise perogative of changing it. I have no idea how often this happens, but it's happened in 1 of 1 adventure I've read thru.
Put another way: If quest says place object A in target B, but the adventure is written so that target B is never presented to you (at least until the after-action denouement, in this case I'm complaining about) The script says the GM should give credit for placing object A in target C instead, but if the mission specifies target B why would a player assume C is going to be of any use? (aside from the possibility of Paizo f*cking alot of these missions up and the player having an understanding of the metagame of how PFS scenarios are written.. I suppose :(
I couldn't in good conscience give the handout to that player without somehow letting him know "Oh by the way, target C is going to work too, in case you can't get target B." at the very least.
Jason S |
In that one scenario however, I noticed that a faction quest (as presented on the handout) is utterly unachievable. No, really. Not exaggerating.
No, it's very achievable and I had a Chelaxian PC complete both faction missions easily.
The way Mermaid is supposed to be played out is:
During these 3 days, Sephriel (the diplomat) is in his room, in a deep trance, communicating with Mordant Spire. That's why it's so easy to kill him, he's helpless. This is also why it's very easy to plant the coin on his body, once you get rid of his bodyguard Thanzeril.
There are many, many ways of getting rid of Thanzeril for 30 seconds, especially over the course of 3 days, so most PCs will (hopefully) be able to think of something.
Imo, Cheliax wants you to plant the coin while he's in a trance and alive, not dead. There's no point in scrying a corpse. But nothing is said in the scenario so GMs can adjudicate it anyway they like.
So yes, it's very achievable.
Deussu |
Or should I have put the coin on the real Sephriel's body at Mordant Spire? That'd be quite farfetched.
Callarek |
Cheliax is run by Devils. Chelaxians grow up learning to obey the letter of the law, not the spirit of it.
As long as you obey the letter of the request, planting the coin on the ambassador, it does NOT matter in the slightest if the ambassador is alive or dead; nor that he had a replacement body available.
Your Lawful faction leader asked you to place the scrying coin on Sephriel. You placed the coin on Sephriel.
Actually, placing the coin on Sephriel's dead body is so totally in keeping with the spirit of Cheliax, I am surprised anyone has any issue with it.
"Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."
lastblacknight |
For the latter bit, it looks like all the players except one are on the "don't kill prisoners" side. So, does the majority rule in this case and is the druid player then in the "jerk" category? I'll definitely be talking to all the players about this situation and I'm hoping this thread will give me options and concepts to aid in that discussion. It's possible that the druid player will just relent on her position and move on (or perhaps change factions). I don't think all of the other players, however, will shift views to support the druid.
Use poison, Make sure the "prisoner" is tied and gagged (for his/her protection) wait til the Paladin is asleep and quietly poison them. It only takes a pin prick (or oak the gag in an ingestible poison) and by the time the Paladin wakes up in the morning the prisoner has committed suicide rather than be taken to the authorities.
At higher levels Druids can do all sorts of things... roleplay it out.
Pass a note to the DM, have some fun working round the Paladin or LG challenge (remember Good Clerics may also have an issue with this).