|
Issues are raised but not one person at the table has said there was a problem.
Right, there are no problems. ;)
and Jason, no one has ever said that anyone should be excluded from a scenario.
John Lynch said it and he's the guy I quoted. I just re-read it and he said certain "social scenarios", which is different than "scenarios". That's where the confusion was.
I would suggest you play the Bloodcove Disguise and get some sense and experience about what is actually being discussed rather than leaping to the assumption that people would be excluded from a table.
I've played the Bloodcove Disguise, thanks. Successfully. With a half-orc Fighter. lol. So I'm AWARE (get it?) of it.
I've seen nothing in this thread so far that couldn't have been applied to a number of scenarios. I actually thought you were talking about Midnight Mauler since Ustalav was referenced.
Anyway, you're free to take this thread in any direction you like knight, I've said what I wanted to say and I'm out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS is supposed to be fun. If you're at a table and not having fun, please discuss this with your GM. If you aren't able to have this conversation with your GM, then by all means politely excuse yourself and find a better use of your time. It's really that simple.
+1.
The day it's no longer fun -- no matter what I play or with whom I play it -- is the day I stop spending time on it.
When do I get up and walk away?
I have never to date done this. Having thought for a moment what would constitute me just getting up and walking away from a session and game:
* a player being physically offensive / abusive (ie a player putting his hands on others or myself)
* something happening physically at the table that I found over the top offensive / abusive (ie... a player throwing some illegal drugs down and partaking in them at the table)
* someone being verbally abusive to me or to other players.
That's about it. I try to play these games with friends so these situations have never come up.
If I am not into a game as a player or as a DM running it, I take some things into consideration.
First... why am I not having fun?
Once that's identified, can this issue be resolved? If yes, then I attempt to resolve it. Passive aggressiveness does not become me, and if a player is dampening my fun, I will talk with them alone and resolve it.
If the issue cannot be resolved, usually because of playstyle differences, I thank the group and retire my character after a session is complete.
In the OP's instance, it sounds like he knows the GM. I would not be passive aggressive about things and just tell him what I thought and resolve the issue.
Do I think the GM should have punished the entire party? I don't know the circumstances, so I cannot comment fully. If a player is being "boisterous" (which I take to mean he was being a dbag), then I would reccomend other players attempt to police that player's actions.
My thoughts.
|
a player putting his hands on others or myself
Hmmm, I should be careful at your table. I once got up and walked around the table and began to simulate a shoulder rub on a player (male) to demonstrate and heighten the impact of an NPC "hitting" on one of the party.
It was very effective and everyone had a big laugh at the targeted character's expense. Not sure if I would have done the same thing to a female gamer unless I knew her, but dunno.
|
|
When would I walk?
- At a multi-slot event when the GM is still running the adventure 5 minutes before I HAVE to be somewhere else. Either to GM in the next slot or muster as a player, or catch a bus, etc. But only after having brought it up a few times already.
- Fire alarm or a threat to my physical safety
- My PC has died with no chance of coming back and no option to participate further in the game.
- I left a home campaign once when the DM expected my Paladin to act in cowardice and disregard for another being's life (which I was responsible for) and as a result of my decision to stay in a dangerous environment to protect the creature, summarily used DM fiat to kill my PC. I would have accepted death by the rules of the game, but not "OK, you're dead." This after having told us his campaign was not going to be a pushover and to expect some deaths.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When would I walk?
- When my belief on how to run my paladin was dramatically different than what the GM expected for how to run a paladin. Essentially an argument over how to define LG actions and what constitutes a loss of powers.
- When another player constantly creates characters with the expressed intention of being "at odds" with my character. Such as a paladin vs. an undead raising necromancer, or a naturalist ranger with favored enemy(half-orc) vs. a half-orc defiler, etc.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
When another player constantly creates characters with the expressed intention of being "at odds" with my character. Such as a paladin vs. an undead raising necromancer, or a naturalist ranger with favored enemy(half-orc) vs. a half-orc defiler, etc.
I can imagine that being (a) a whole lot of role-playing fun, or (b) a real headache, depending on the attitude the other player brings to the table along with the character.
"Hey, Bob, I've got a necromancer. Do you mind if I bring her to a table with Turlokkk so that he can counsel her in the error of her ways?"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When another player constantly creates characters with the expressed intention of being "at odds" with my character. Such as a paladin vs. an undead raising necromancer, or a naturalist ranger with favored enemy(half-orc) vs. a half-orc defiler, etc.I can imagine that being (a) a whole lot of role-playing fun, or (b) a real headache, depending on the attitude the other player brings to the table along with the character.
"Hey, Bob, I've got a necromancer. Do you mind if I bring her to a table with Turlokkk so that he can counsel her in the error of her ways?"
I often find that the interaction goes more like this.
Player 1: (Thinking to himself) Bob is bringing his paladin. I hate paladins, they ruin everyones fun, and it's fun to force paladins to fall because they can't just beat the snot out of me like they would in a home game due to no PvP. I'm going to make the game hell for him and teach him he shouldn't ever play paladins.
Player 1 proceeds with pre-thought out plan.
|
|
I think any player and judge have had those tables where they sit there and calculate the factors about getting up from a table.
I had a table at a convention earlier this year...
The table consisted of
Evil Kyle
Dwarf
rogue pregen -- avid 4e player never played 3.5 or pfs and friend of:
alchemest pregen -- spent the entire scenario trying to turn everything into 4e terms
inquisitor
For me this was my worst table ever and one I simply wanted to get up and walk away from. None of the characters or players were working together and one fairly prolific judge sitting as a player (unnamed) kept trying to overjudge me during the scenario.
For me I knew I had a choice, either pull up my big girl panties and deal with the situation I was presented with (I did get to yell at Kyle so it was worth it). Or act like a spoiled judge and get up and walk away.
Simply put for me it comes down tothis, I have to decide if I am a child to where I can't handle if it doesn't go my way, or am I an adult that deals with more challenging issues on a daily basis and this is merely a stumbling block alon the gameing pathways.
Scenarios don't always go the way we want, it's part of the nature of the beast in playing with real life humans. People have personality quirks that are going to piss you off.
If it's the judge you have an issue with, either man-up and talk to him about it face to face or just don't sit at his table again. But in my opinion you committed to the juge and other players when you sat down to play and personally I do what I can to meet my committments.
/end ramble
|
|
I think any player and judge have had those tables where they sit there and calculate the factors about getting up from a table.
I had a table at a convention earlier this year...
The table consisted of
Evil Kyle
Dwarf
rogue pregen -- avid 4e player never played 3.5 or pfs and friend of:
alchemest pregen -- spent the entire scenario trying to turn everything into 4e terms
inquisitorFor me this was my worst table ever and one I simply wanted to get up and walk away from. None of the characters or players were working together and one fairly prolific judge sitting as a player (unnamed) kept trying to overjudge me during the scenario.
For me I knew I had a choice, either pull up my big girl panties and deal with the situation I was presented with (I did get to yell at Kyle so it was worth it). Or act like a spoiled judge and get up and walk away.
Simply put for me it comes down tothis, I have to decide if I am a child to where I can't handle if it doesn't go my way, or am I an adult that deals with more challenging issues on a daily basis and this is merely a stumbling block alon the gameing pathways.
Scenarios don't always go the way we want, it's part of the nature of the beast in playing with real life humans. People have personality quirks that are going to piss you off.
If it's the judge you have an issue with, either man-up and talk to him about it face to face or just don't sit at his table again. But in my opinion you committed to the juge and other players when you sat down to play and personally I do what I can to meet my committments.
/end ramble
Now if I'm the judge, I agree with this -- I would stick it out through the end, cos 1) I agreed to judge and 2) there might not be a game without me in that circumstance.
Frankly, I'd probably even finish the mod as a player if my leaving would make the table non-legal.
I know! Though, I still can't wrap my mind around why there is such a wide spread hate for Paladins.
Because Paladins are the only class that feels it acceptable to tell other people what they can or can't play. If a necromancer and a paladin sit down at a table together and the paladin has a problem with that then it really is the paladins problem, not the necromancer's... Every other class can happily agree to work together, assuming no-one is being a jerk of course, with a bit of light banter about religious or philosophical differences.
It would be like having a core class that "will never adventure with spellcasters" and then demanding that no-one plays a spellcaster at their table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because Paladins are the only class that feels it acceptable to tell other people what they can or can't play.
While I love playing characters that are... let's call it, morally flexible, I found that most issues stem not from the LG guy (though there are quite a few sticks-up-their-asses types), but rather from the ones that consider it good roleplaying to make the LG character's life as unpleasant as possible.
This may be an old-fashioned view, but I prefer to see a group acting as a team. One that is able to set aside their differences and do what must be done.
If you consider it cool to play a CE psychopath who sneaks away from the group to defile and slaughter some priestesses in the temple we were visiting the day before (and we have a cleric of); if you are the type who secretly steals from the group or sabotages the adventure because it's cool role playing your character - bonus points for gloating about it OOC, and laughing that we are just stupid sheep, and no one of the chars will be doning anything to stop you because, IC, we just don't know, hurr hurr... you are just not welcome at my table.
And if I happen to play in a group containing such a player, I will just rise, thank the GM, state that I see myself unable to play with the group as a whole, and leave.
If the group contains a Paladin whose player just states he will smite my char the very second he witnesses something that does not completely within his moral code; a code the player chose, same thing.
Long story short: Whenever a player uses his character as an excuse to act like an utter a$$hole towards the group, I will not play with that player. It's that easy.
If you consider it cool to play a CE psychopath who sneaks away from the group to defile and slaughter some priestesses in the temple we were visiting the day before (and we have a cleric of); if you are the type who secretly steals from the group or sabotages the adventure because it's cool role playing your character - bonus points for gloating about it OOC, and laughing that we are just stupid sheep, and no one of the chars will be doning anything to stop you because, IC, we just don't know, hurr hurr...
You've played with some very strange people! :-)
Actually in PFS, particularly at cons, I see a lot of players who really skirt the "No Evil" rule and generally make life difficult for anyone trying to play a remotely 'good' character.
And most of the times, I would not play with such people, partly because I fear that the DM would not stop them from being total jerks towards the guy who wants to play a Paladin without losing his powers after the first two encounters.
Actually in PFS, particularly at cons, I see a lot of players who really skirt the "No Evil" rule and generally make life difficult for anyone trying to play a remotely 'good' character.
Well, the society is neutral so its up to all the characters to compromise, including the good ones. Assassination is just as valid as openly challenging the enemy if it advances the society's goals.
None of the characters should be putting the society at risk though, whether 'good' or 'evil' (by committing random murders that result in reprisals, or reporting fellow pathfinders to the authorities for example).
And most of the times, I would not play with such people, partly because I fear that the DM would not stop them from being total jerks towards the guy who wants to play a Paladin without losing his powers after the first two encounters.
And that's the problem with Paladins; they're dictating what others can or can't do "because I'll lose my powers" when everyone else can just compromise a bit and get along.
To be fair I've seen plenty of paladins compromise, and few GMs treat the paladin's code like a straightjacket, so raising undead just generates a lot of moralising, which is cool. It really comes down to the GM I guess. I would never remove a paladin's powers just because other players are being jerks. The paladin is in a difficult position but has sworn to complete the mission - that's catch 22. So long as he does the best he can and tries to uphold his honour, whilst minimising the damage caused by others, then fair play to him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
You've played with some very strange people! :-)
Aye. Blame it on my age.
I don't think I've seen it all yet (I have yet to come across players doing drugs while playing, or fistfights during the evening), but during my quarter century of roleplaying, I've had my fair share of- psychopathic characters
- holier-than-thou-and-I-will-rub-that-in-at-every-occasion characters
- players who make a character specifically designed to make the other ones' lives miserable
- players who expect 'a bit more motivation for my character, why on earth should I even consider going into that backwater village?'
- players whose characters have zero interest in the party, the story or whatever... but can spend whole sessions just contemplating their navel
- players who just 'have to' model a character after a book they just read, regardless of scenario or setting (pro-Tip: There are no Jedi in Space 1889)
- players whose explicit intention is to derail any semblance of plot they come across, then ask 'What now, GM? Didn't prepare enough?'
- players who are on the quest for the ever-more-exotic character... and prompltly complain about the unfriendly environment for their albino, alcohol addicted, one-armed merfolk inquisitor with vietnam trauma
- and so on
My patience with these has just scraped rock bottom. If I GM, please build a character that gets along with the group (there's a reason why we create characters together, or at least discuss the character seeds together), one I will be able to motivate without doing a double Houdini, and we are golden. As long as you are willing to compromise, I am perfectly willing not to hose you, or anyone else.
Same goes about 'playing with the story'.
So you came up with a druid who thinks 'that stinking blight on the landscape that calls itself Korvosa should be cleansed in Hellfire? Well, don't expect I'll let you play CoTC with that one.
I announce a campaign about courtly intrigue, set in a musketeer environment? Please refrain from bringing your CHA 5 Half-Orc Neanderthal Barbarian, thank you very much.
If I play, I cannot tell you how and what to play. I can, however, state that playing with some kind of characters does not mean I will be having fun. And, since my goal at playing is having fun, I will simply not play in these cases.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And most of the times, I would not play with such people, partly because I fear that the DM would not stop them from being total jerks towards the guy who wants to play a Paladin without losing his powers after the first two encounters.And that's the problem with Paladins; they're dictating what others can or can't do "because I'll lose my powers" when everyone else can just compromise a bit and get along.
There is absolutely nothing another player can do that would cause a paladin to lose his powers unless that player is performing some blatantly evil act *which they shouldn't be doing in PFS regardless*.
The problem I've seen is people do tend to do lots of pretty evil acts in PFS and feel a good aligned characters should look the other way and not say anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The problem I've seen is people do tend to do lots of pretty evil acts in PFS and feel a good aligned characters should look the other way and not say anything." - This is some pretty horrid "player entitlement" right here.
Just because YOU (not pointing at anyone, just using an example) want to play an evil character, the DM has to ban Paladins? If I were DM and saw this happening, my answer would be "No, you selfish little dips***, you are playing with a party and mister goodie is as much entitled to his paladin as you are to your jerk of a rogue. So, either you agree to compromise or you get the hell outta my table".
I played with a group (I was the DM) that had a Taldan paladin and a borderline chaotic evil Dwarf fighter (who, despite never committing something that horrible, had the nickname "Dorf Rapist"), and the two got along if only because the latter's wrath was directed mainly towards enemies and the dwarf actually considered the other characters to be his pals. He actually flew into a frenzy when an Efreet killed the Paladin, and proceeded to avenge him pretty quickly.
"No, you selfish little dips***, you are playing with a party and mister goodie is as much entitled to his paladin as you are to your jerk of a rogue. So, either you agree to compromise or you get the hell outta my table".
A-men.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The problem I've seen is people do tend to do lots of pretty evil acts in PFS and feel a good aligned characters should look the other way and not say anything.
Which is always the paradox of Organized Play.
"Chaotic Neutral" Character: I'm going to slit the helpless prisoner's throats.
"Chaotic Good" Character: Whoa, um, you really shouldn't do that.
"Over the top Lawful Good" Paladin: Nay varlet! Cease thy desire to rampantly murder the helpless!
"CN"C: Or what?
OtTLGP: Um... Or I'll say stop again?
Clearly in my example, the "Chaotic Neutral" character is committing an evil act. But what can the Paladin really do? I mean what I call the "Batman Begins Rule" is about the only recourse left to him if the oportunity arises later in the game, "I'm not going to kill you. I don't have to save you." But some might call that PvP.
Which is always the paradox of Organized Play."Chaotic Neutral" Character: I'm going to slit the helpless prisoner's throats.
"Chaotic Good" Character: Whoa, um, you really shouldn't do that.
"Over the top Lawful Good" Paladin: Nay varlet! Cease thy desire to rampantly murder the helpless!
"CN"C: Or what?
OtTLGP: Um... Or I'll say stop again?Clearly in my example, the "Chaotic Neutral" character is committing an evil act. But what can the Paladin really do? I mean what I call the "Batman Begins Rule" is about the only recourse left to him if the oportunity arises later in the game, "I'm not going to kill you. I don't have to save you." But some might call that PvP.
And considering the circumstances, the jerk playing a Chaotic Neutral character as a Chaotic Evil maniac will of course say that the Paladin is being a PvPing jerk just to get himself out of trouble, but will also probably do it to get the Paladin to lose his powers. Trust me, I've seen a lot of people who just LOVE to troll Paladins about that. Then again, it's one of the few reasons why I loved the Gray Guard prestige class.
Jerk player: "But you can't do that!! You're a Paladin!!"
Gray Guard: "I can, and you deserve it. Now take it like a man." *Smite*
That would be a case of epic win, while also being a good way to fight back against Paladin oppression.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I played with a group (I was the DM) that had a Taldan paladin and a borderline chaotic evil Dwarf fighter (who, despite never committing something that horrible, had the nickname "Dorf Rapist"), and the two got along if only because the latter's wrath was directed mainly towards enemies and the dwarf actually considered the other characters to be his pals. He actually flew into a frenzy when an Efreet killed the Paladin, and proceeded to avenge him pretty quickly.
Non-PFS, but Shadrach, my LE psychic warrior, considered the NG cleric of St. Cuthbert to be his best friend in the party ("If only she would stop begging someone for power and seize it herself!" Shad says) It's not the evil types (especially the LE types) that are disruptive. It's the chaotic jerk*** players.
My Magus Talyn has travelled with an annoying jester. He annoys Talyn, he annoys me. But when given the change to use the 'Batman Begins Rule' I saved him. Why? Because Talyn's a hero.
Likewise, Talyn is annoyed by Paladins/Shining Crusade types. It doesn't change that while he may give the Paladin grief ("But who will adopt the orphans?") He won't plot to make the Paladin fall.
"It's not the evil types (especially the LE types) that are disruptive. It's the chaotic jerk*** players." - Funny hearing that after seeing examples of how Lawful Evil players have tried to make Paladins fall and corrupt them (Infernal Healing thread). Then again, I do understand that a lot of people play LE because "evil is cool" and actually actively avoid the nastier aspects of being evil like actually BEING distruptive by corrupting your fellows.
Also funny how that "Dorf Rapist" broke the mold by being Chaotic Neutral/Chaotic Evil and NOT being distruptive. The worst he would do is snarl at the Aasimar Cleric for being a sissy or mock the elf for being the worst wizard ever (he really was, due to multi-classing far too much). Also, I think that if you want to play Evil (regardless of whether you're Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic), you really need to do EVIL things. If you don't, you make a shift towards neutral, or if you do, you will end up facing the consequences of your evil deeds sooner or later. It's also the reason why my Cleric of Zon-Kuthon is Lawful NEUTRAL.
a player putting his hands on others or myselfHmmm, I should be careful at your table. I once got up and walked around the table and began to simulate a shoulder rub on a player (male) to demonstrate and heighten the impact of an NPC "hitting" on one of the party.
It was very effective and everyone had a big laugh at the targeted character's expense. Not sure if I would have done the same thing to a female gamer unless I knew her, but dunno.
When I say "putting his hands on others or myself" I mean in a violent kind of way.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"It's not the evil types (especially the LE types) that are disruptive. It's the chaotic jerk*** players." - Funny hearing that after seeing examples of how Lawful Evil players have tried to make Paladins fall and corrupt them. Then again, I do understand that a lot of people play LE because "evil is cool" and actually actively avoid the nastier aspects of being evil like actually BEING distruptive by corrupting your fellows.
Also funny how that "Dorf Rapist" broke the mold by being Chaotic Neutral/Chaotic Evil and NOT being distruptive. The worst he would do is snarl at the Aasimar Cleric for being a sissy or mock the elf for being the worst wizard ever (he really was, due to multi-classing far too much), but yeah. Also, I think that if you want to play Evil, you really need to do EVIL things, but that of course leads you to trouble sooner or later. It's also the reason why my Cleric of Zon-Kuthon is Lawful NEUTRAL.
Your examples go back to the *players* though I feel.
We're kind of wandering off topic I think...
Now while I don't expect the LE character to 'trick the Paladin into falling' I do expect him to be as preachy as the Paladin, maybe to annoy him. "You know, I could just kill him and speak with dead to find out what he saw." "Nay! The youth is just misguided. Mere Gold is a small price to pay to have the information we seek." "But the dead don't lie." Etc etc. But the LE character shouldn't just slit the kid's throat and the cast speak with dead because dissention harms the mission, and is chaotic.
Or I've just been reading too much Secret Six.
Back about a decade or go when my group was in their early 20s, problems with the evil characters were more blatant and I was more lenient as a GM. Which meant that I pretty much let a player who wanted to be evil play evil.
It caused a lot of problems. Not just with paladins, we had several players play good aligned characters who had problems with rapists, murderers, and party-thieving, all of which was done by the evil characters as a way to "role play their character".
Players who go out of their way to make another player's character/game experience suffer have no place at the table in my opinion.
I seem to always have a guy in my groups that love playing paladins. None of them have been super jackassish about their paladin. I have also had guys in the group come in and try to sabotage the paladin "for lawlz".
In today's group I have a paladin player. He doesn't allow evil acts to be done around him. The party for the most part are not raping, murdering marauders, and so it all works.
Also, I think that if you want to play Evil (regardless of whether you're Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic), you really need to do EVIL things, with the two options for that being a shift towards neutral or facing the consequences of your evil deeds sooner or later. It's also the reason why my Cleric of Zon-Kuthon is Lawful NEUTRAL.
Hmm... now we are starting to skirt the definition of evil.
One char I played was a great team player. Sweet as pie towards the group (they were her meat shields and healbots, after all), helped them along the way (hey, we have a common enemy), coming up with strategies to get the whole group through tough situations... all her actions being weighed in a 'how much does doing this help me, or hinder me, as far as I can predict?'Lifes of innocents? Not a factor. Morality? Irrelevant.
However, doing things the group will disprove of will at least lead to inconvenience, so I would do a quick analysis of the loss to gain ratio... and of course, how likely am I to get caught?
Would this not qualify as 'significantly evil' in your book?
|
|
Give me one single instance where a paladin lost his/her powers in PFS organized play. Just one. Not something you heard about from a friend. Not a time that it almost happened. A time that the GM actually documented it on the Chronicle sheet and you were there to witness it. Unless someone can, then this discussion is completely academic and people are getting worked up over a mere idea. Can't we agree that Star Trek was a cool show no matter how many episodes were made?
If you play a paladin in PFS organized play, then you choose to bring grief upon yourself. Until Season 3 when the Silver Crusade was added as a faction, PFS had not been a remotely heroic campaign. The Society itself is a neutral organization at best. The game is built upon the premise of killing things and taking their stuff. I think that playing a paladin can be a lot of fun, but the player shouldn't expect to have any sympathy when they are confronted with code violations due to their mission or the party members they have to cooperate with. Those players painted a bullseye on their backs and shouldn't complain when they get peppered with arrows.
... On this note, how far do you take an interpretation of a module as 'racially intolerant' - would you arrest and eject a Mwangi PFS PC or not allow them to interact at all if the mod said Mwangi were out of favour in this city? Or would you simply increase DCs... I know I would go for the latter.
Slight disagreement. I would not increase the DC. I would apply a situational modifier/penalty to the characters skill check.
Ex: "Mwangi have a -4 (or whatever) on social skill checks"
And really, I think that should have been in the module.
|
The problem I've seen is people do tend to do lots of pretty evil acts in PFS and feel a good aligned characters should look the other way and not say anything.Which is always the paradox of Organized Play.
"Chaotic Neutral" Character: I'm going to slit the helpless prisoner's throats.
"Chaotic Good" Character: Whoa, um, you really shouldn't do that.
"Over the top Lawful Good" Paladin: Nay varlet! Cease thy desire to rampantly murder the helpless!
"CN"C: Or what?
OtTLGP: Um... Or I'll say stop again?Clearly in my example, the "Chaotic Neutral" character is committing an evil act. But what can the Paladin really do? I mean what I call the "Batman Begins Rule" is about the only recourse left to him if the oportunity arises later in the game, "I'm not going to kill you. I don't have to save you." But some might call that PvP.
OtTLGP: You sir are morally reprehensible. Because I've agreed with the Pathfinder Society to cooperate on missions with other members, I am oathbound to let you be. But should you continue with this brutal assault on my good senses, I will see no recourse but to refuse to travel with you ever again. Consider yourself on notice.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The problem I've seen is people do tend to do lots of pretty evil acts in PFS and feel a good aligned characters should look the other way and not say anything.Which is always the paradox of Organized Play.
"Chaotic Neutral" Character: I'm going to slit the helpless prisoner's throats.
"Chaotic Good" Character: Whoa, um, you really shouldn't do that.
"Over the top Lawful Good" Paladin: Nay varlet! Cease thy desire to rampantly murder the helpless!
"CN"C: Or what?
OtTLGP: Um... Or I'll say stop again?Clearly in my example, the "Chaotic Neutral" character is committing an evil act. But what can the Paladin really do? I mean what I call the "Batman Begins Rule" is about the only recourse left to him if the oportunity arises later in the game, "I'm not going to kill you. I don't have to save you." But some might call that PvP.
See I don't see asking a character not to kill a helpless person as being "Over the Top" myself. It's not even that difficult to deal with, I've been in plenty of groups where the wanna-be-evil player just complies then sneaks back to kill the NPCs throat later.
This is one of the reasons I vastly prefer play in a local PFS group versus at conventions. When players deal with each other every week they can work out compromises and a GM can talk to repeat offenders. At conventions there seems to be a far more maverick style of play.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
See I don't see asking a character not to kill a helpless person as being "Over the Top" myself. It's not even that difficult to deal with, I've been in plenty of groups where the wanna-be-evil player just complies then sneaks back to kill the NPCs throat later.
This is one of the reasons I vastly prefer play in a local PFS group versus at conventions. When players deal with each other every week they can work out compromises and a GM can talk to repeat offenders. At conventions there seems to be a far more maverick style of play.
Sorry, I didn't mean the request was over the top. I meant the character was. Thus the Thor-speak. The problem being, what *can* the Paladin player do if "Chaotic Neutral Character" does kill the prisoner? Andrew's answer isn't helpful if it's the Paladin player's only game.
Because of BOTLM's heroic efforts, we (in Columbus) have an open Wednesday game (which I can't make because of work) and normally two games on Saturday. I think I'm confident enough in myself* I can put on the GM hat in a pinch too, and hopefully, can get another game on Sundays in Newark going. So yeah, that's an option. "I'll play Silverbolt in the noon slot and you play Jack the Ripper in the 5:00 slot, deal?" That's unfortunately not an option for everyone.
*
... - When is it appropriate to get up and walk away from the table?
I understand that there is a lot of discussion about refusing a cert or getting one for retiring mechanical reasons, but what about just that you felt you needed to leave the table due to a DM or Player?
I agree that walking away is a serious step. Especially if I already know and like some of the group (either players or GM). As other have said, it's only a few hours and I don't want to leave others 'in the lurch'. However, I would definitely walk before it gets to the shouting stage.
Hmm... now we are starting to skirt the definition of evil.
One char I played was a great team player. Sweet as pie towards the group (they were her meat shields and healbots, after all), helped them along the way (hey, we have a common enemy), coming up with strategies to get the whole group through tough situations... all her actions being weighed in a 'how much does doing this help me, or hinder me, as far as I can predict?'Lifes of innocents? Not a factor. Morality? Irrelevant.
However, doing things the group will disprove of will at least lead to inconvenience, so I would do a quick analysis of the loss to gain ratio... and of course, how likely am I to get caught?Would this not qualify as 'significantly evil' in your book?
I'd call that character True Neutral instead of Neutral Evil, since she's not actively being really evil (like killing those innocents), just being passively amoral (not giving a damn about said innocents). Then again, what exactly are you getting at? (I feel tired and my mind isn't processing as fast as it did earlier)
I'd call that character True Neutral instead of Neutral Evil, since she's not actively being really evil (like killing those innocents), just being passively amoral (not giving a damn about said innocents). Then again, what exactly are you getting at? (I feel tired and my mind isn't processing as fast as it did earlier)
*laughs* Just getting a hook into what struck me as your train of thought: If you are playing an evil character, you have to do EVIL things. Which will mean you will be disruptive, or offensive to other party members. So, don't play an evil character.
While, in my opinion, passively amoral (doing whatever I think I can get away with, my own gain being the be-all and end-all) is one of the poster children for NE... and can be played quite nicely.
That was, basically, all.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, from reading some of these comments, I'd think maybe some people missed that Pathfinder allows paladins to adventure with evil allies if necessary, without losing their powers.
Also, there is only one item in the (Pathfinder) Paladin's Code that allows the actions of people other than the paladin to affect the paladin's status:
...and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Given that harming or threatening innocents would be evil (banned in PFS), and everything else in the Code is strictly about the paladin's own behavior, then as long as the players and GM remember which game they're playing it's impossible for one player to force a different player's paladin to fall.
You can't force someone else's paladin to "willingly commit an evil act".
You can't force someone else's paladin to not "respect legitimate authority".
You can't force someone else's paladin to no "act with honor".
You can't (short of physical restraint, which would be PvP) force someone else's paladin to not "help those in need".
You can't force someone else's paladin to fall in PFS.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While, in my opinion, passively amoral (doing whatever I think I can get away with, my own gain being the be-all and end-all) is one of the poster children for NE... and can be played quite nicely.
That was, basically, all.
Ok, this made me laugh, I was rereading Secret Six "Unhinged" this morning and Deadshot fits your (and my!) Neutral Evil to a T.
Thomas Blake (Catman): If you saw a little girl playing in a busy street, would you help her?
Floyd Lawton (Deadshot): Well I'd not go out of the way to run her over if that's what you mean.
Catman: No, it's not.
Later in the same book, (like two pages later) They both go and try to buy ice cream in the middle of a hold up. Deadshot takes the gun from the tough ("You may not respect me, but you will respect the gun.") Shows the tough how to do it, using the convience store clerk as the example. ("You press the gun against the forehead not the back of the head, so he can see it. You then speak in a calm tone, not all this yelling. 'Put the money in the bag, Dave.') He culminates this by keeping the money for himself ("I'm keeping this because you haven't earned it.") and stealing a case or two of cigarettes ("And I'm taking these, um, because of your shoddy security.") They then leave the store, so the hispanic couple is stuck dealing with a trio of angry humiliated skinheads. Something Deadshot points out to Catman while they're getting into the car.
Bold part was mine. Did you mean that this is your belief?
No. It is what I think Icyshadow implied. Which is why I replied with an experience of what I believe to be an NE character who was not disruptive.
Oiled with the blood of the weak? Yeah, I could so imagine that working well with the Paladin of the group, who would NEVER smite this evil monster for making the group moving in such a manner. *Sarcasm mode off*
Then again, what is the difference between Neutral and Evil in situations where the Evil characters don't actually DO anything evil?
|
|
I think it bears pointing out to Midnight Angel & Icyshadow that you are posting in the Pathfinder Society organized play campaign forum. I'm not telling you not to post, just that you may be posting thinking you are in a different section of the forums. There are no Evil characters allowed in Pathfinder Society, and really alignment is a topic that has been argued to death elsewhere.