RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What if you had played the paladin anyway? Would he have questioned your adherence to the paladin code? Would you have lost your powers?
I don't know.
I was fine with his position; it's his table.
|
I can't help but notice in alignment discussions, how badly people stereotype the different alignments. You can have a CN PC who is a much better (and agreeable) teammate than a LG jerk any day of the week. Alignment is only one aspect of a PC, their PERSONALITY is something completely different.
A LG PC can actually annoy another LG PC more than a CN ever could, it's all about the personality, method of interaction, goals, and a million other factors. You see it in literature all the time, but somehow in D&D and PF we like to stereotype (and poorly I might add). Good doesn't always get along and agree with good!
In video games, the CN characters have been some of the most delightful (and popular) characters you could choose to have in your party, and not evil at all.
Merisiel is CN! She groups with paladins and clerics of Sarenrae all the time with no problem.
So stop with the CN hate. :)
You can continue your alignment debate now. :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Doug,
If it helps, I attended a convention a couple months ago, intending to play my Paladin PC in a Season 3 scenario. The GM mentioned, before the play started, that he felt a paladin would not be able to complete the assignment without falling. So I played something else.
** spoiler omitted **
Seems to me using that standard, a Paladin might be disqualified from a lot of scenarios. Just off the top of my head, I can think of two which would be highly questionable.There is one where you have to sneak past the lawful authorities into a city. Another where you are smuggling a cleric into a country against local laws. I know there are a bunch of other questionable activities.
... how badly people stereotype the different alignments. You can have a CN PC who is a much better (and agreeable) teammate than a LG jerk any day of the week...
It is a confusion of causation with coorelation. Many people have experience with immature players that pick CN just because they want an excuse to be seflish jerks. The players do what ever random whim pops into their head with no thought of anyone else. "But I'm just playing my alignment" But, of course, they still expect the others to help them when needed because they are not CN. Many gamers have experienced coorelation between CN and jerkish behavior. In their heads they think of it as CN causes jerkish behavior.
Same reason many people disparage anyone who plays an optimized character as a munchkin.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So stop with the CN hate. :)
I actually don't think people hate CN, I think it's all the people who play evil, and label their character "CN" to slide it by in the rules. The more I see this, and I have, the more I wish they would simply define evil, outlaw it, and be done with it. No one is stupid, we all know these people are still being evil. This is all assuming that the campaign staff truly doesn't want evil in the PFS campaign, instead of the evil label on a character sheet.
I'd much prefer they allowed evil characters and evil actions, but toughened up the rules about co-operation and not causing problems for the society. Then no-one can complain about characters skirting evil, and we can all complain about idiots murdering random people or causing party strife and putting the mission in peril. That applies to paladins as well as evil characters. :-)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'd much prefer they allowed evil characters and evil actions, but toughened up the rules about co-operation and not causing problems for the society. Then no-one can complain about characters skirting evil, and we can all complain about idiots murdering random people or causing party strife and putting the mission in peril. That applies to paladins as well as evil characters. :-)
No thanks.
The people who play neutral characters like they are evil tend to play evil characters like psychotic morons.
|
|
Evil Acts and Evil alignments are not the problem. People who can't curb their anti-social behavior at the table are the problem. We call these people "jerks". When I GM, I let my players get as wicked as they want, so long as everyone is having fun. That's the whole point of this game we play, to have fun, right? The no Evil alignments thing exists only to avoid people playing like jerks at the table. I am confident that there could be Evil PCs in this campaign and some players could use them responsibly. But for the jerks of the world, things could be a lot more fun.
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Every time I see one of these threads on Alignment, the first thing I think of is "Hey, Raistlin was Evil, and he was able to cooperate with the group most of the time because of a common goal... even if his motivation was selfish."
What Doug said is the truth; the rule is there in an effort to stop people from being Jerks. Most of the times that Alignment have caused a problem in any of my games has been one of two things.
1) The class required an alignment, but the player wanted to get away with not playing that requirement. "So, yes, I killed that bard. He was telling other of locations of treasures best kept out of others hands. It wasn't evil; I was protecting my race/country."
2) The player wanted to have an excuse for being an @$$hat to the other players. "I'm just acting Chaotic Neutral!"
If players would work within the simple rules that the Pathfinders follow, Explore, Report, Cooperate, some of the problems with alignment and Organized Play would go away.
|
|
Seems to me using that standard, a Paladin might be disqualified from a lot of scenarios. Just off the top of my head, I can think of two which would be highly questionable.There is one where you have to sneak past the lawful authorities into a city. Another where you are smuggling a cleric into a country against local laws. I know there are a bunch of other questionable activities.Doug,
If it helps, I attended a convention a couple months ago, intending to play my Paladin PC in a Season 3 scenario. The GM mentioned, before the play started, that he felt a paladin would not be able to complete the assignment without falling. So I played something else.
** spoiler omitted **
join a pirate ship. Did the sneak into town one, my pally took a vow of silence and just guarded one of the lady pc's
the basic fact though, is that the society are smugglers. They have operations everywhere. As a paladin this makes life interesting.Am reading this cause about to run Sewer dragons of Absalom and have 2 paladins signed up. it will be interesting.
Evil Acts and Evil alignments are not the problem. People who can't curb their anti-social behavior at the table are the problem. We call these people "jerks". When I GM, I let my players get as wicked as they want, so long as everyone is having fun. That's the whole point of this game we play, to have fun, right? The no Evil alignments thing exists only to avoid people playing like jerks at the table. I am confident that there could be Evil PCs in this campaign and some players could use them responsibly. But for the jerks of the world, things could be a lot more fun.
Heh... I had a thread debating the evil question. And had to accept that evil was verboten to keep the jerks suppressed.
Really, the kind of person who disrupts a group -- regardless of alignment -- is one of the things which might move me to walk from a table. If you're NOT willing to cooperate and refrain from stealing from your teammates, etc., etc., why are you HERE?
For the record, I believe in responsible, cooperative, often charming evil. I hope that Aspis Organized Roleplay gets off the ground, so I can indulge. In the meantime, I'll be one of those people playing Neutral alignments and skirting the edge of evil... not because I want to piss off the paladins, but because evil=expedience=getting the job done.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Being a flexible good character IS very hard as it seems many neutral characters like to taunt a good character and do openly evil acts... Slitting throats of helpless people, etc... I try to keep overall goal in mind, if I waste money on a con and this happens it really is aggravating. I wish GMs would somewhat enforce the no evil rule.
|
If you're not having fun, I would say its definitely okay to quit the table and walk away. If you are doing it because of something not going your way that is one thing, but if its the entire session being horrible after 2 hours of play. I don't believe you are obligated to sit there miserable for 2-3 more hours.
in my opinion you have 3 choices:
1. Sit there and go along for the ride and waste 2-3 hours out of some feeling of obligation.
2. Voice your opinion that you don't consider this situation fair or fun and that the entire campaign so far is quite a miserable experience.
3. Pack up your gear and say sorry guys, but I can't continue playing this scenario.
Of 35-40 games that I have played, there is only 1 situation where I was so miserable I wanted to walk away. I didn't and I stuck it out because I was trying not to make waves with the group. I won't do that again though.
I think your best bet is voice your thoughts to the group in a diplomatic manner. If this starts an argument or meets with disapproval and no resolution. Walk away knowing you tried to resolve the situation and Its better to go find something else better to do. If you're like me, I have very few hours of precious free time and I will not spend it being unhappy and angry.
and big eyeroll to the folks who think its cool for the GM to spite kill your character for quitting their scenario half way through.
|
|
Hi all,the other day I had a pathfinder society experience where I wanted to walk away from the table - the DM in my view as a DM, wanted to 'teach the players a lesson' and Allowed the module to essentially be failed - (I checked the mod afterwards and the requisite skill checks had actually been met, the DM had 'adjusted them' and decided that one player had been too boisterous, and as such deserved 'to be shown that he has to have humility'.)
Holy crap, I'm glad that's not the universal GMing style, or I'd never succeed in any missions at all!
|
While I cannot, by rule, physically stop another character from taking evil (in my mind) actions, I can choose not to directly support that character. I could see myself withholding healing or helping another character in combat over the "evil" one. I definitely would not help him with a faction mission. And if the player was being douchy about it, I would leave the table.
I agree that a player should be allowed to withold his services from someone who is being obnoxious (offending the PC's own ethics, or public ethics, in a way that would bring the Society into disrepute), but many would consider that to be a form of PvP.
Is there an official stance, concerning the practice?
I can support a lawful/good/principled character, who adopts an attitude of 'I won't harm you, but I'm not under any obligation to protect you, either.'.
How far is too far?
"You know, if I'm expected to turn a blind eye to everything you do, one of these days I'm going to fail to notice you're bleeding."
"Okay, I can cure four people today, and there's ...five...in this party. Looks like today's not your lucky day."
"Who needs healing?"
<ignores unconscious bleeding Chaotic 'Neutral'>
<heals minor injury on fellow principled PC>
"Anyone else?"
<ignores unconscious bleeding Chaotic 'Neutral'>
<heals minor injury on fellow principled PC>
"Better speak up, before they're all gone! No?"
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree with a number of the posts I see here. When I GM for Paizo at Cons (and this is different than being a GM for a local or home game) I am being compensated to be there, volunteer or not. My job is to run the module I was assigned to the best of my ability; this includes running it as close to the written word as possible.
As a GM you should try to LIMIT table variance, not purposely add it. Increasing the DC of rolls because of the previous actions of players is nothing more than punishment, and often is the action of a power-tripping DM. In my opinion a DC should not be lessened either. The only time a DC should change is if the module itself specifically accounts for variance (i.e. If the players helped character X in Act 1, this DC is lessened by 2). I think this should hold true for all "hard" mechanics/rules; soft fluff that does not effect how the module plays out should be where the variance is (What does your character do at the party? Get drunk and starts a ruckus? Sure, go for it.)
When you are a (compensated) GM your goal is to run the best, fairest, most standardized game for your players. They should have the opportunity for the same fun experience that any other table has playing the same module. As a GM leave your lessons, rules, teaching, childishness, and vindictiveness at the door. Yes you should have fun also, but only after you have met the obligations and responsibilities of your volunteered position. You choose to do this. Act like it and be professional.
If you cant, maybe you should not GM for the Society. I dont think the Society will be any less for losing you as a GM either.
|
|
I have to disagree with a number of the posts I see here. When I GM for Paizo at Cons (and this is different than being a GM for a local or home game) I am being compensated to be there, volunteer or not. My job is to run the module I was assigned to the best of my ability; this includes running it as close to the written word as possible.
As a GM you should try to LIMIT table variance, not purposely add it. Increasing the DC of rolls because of the previous actions of players is nothing more than punishment, and often is the action of a power-tripping DM. In my opinion a DC should not be lessened either. The only time a DC should change is if the module itself specifically accounts for variance (i.e. If the players helped character X in Act 1, this DC is lessened by 2). I think this should hold true for all "hard" mechanics/rules; soft fluff that does not effect how the module plays out should be where the variance is (What does your character do at the party? Get drunk and starts a ruckus? Sure, go for it.)
When you are a (compensated) GM your goal is to run the best, fairest, most standardized game for your players. They should have the opportunity for the same fun experience that any other table has playing the same module. As a GM leave your lessons, rules, teaching, childishness, and vindictiveness at the door. Yes you should have fun also, but only after you have met the obligations and responsibilities of your volunteered position. You choose to do this. Act like it and be professional.
If you cant, maybe you should not GM for the Society. I dont think the Society will be any less for losing you as a GM either.
Now see this is the GM I want to run with. Check your ego at the door and just run a fair game. Thank you!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The actions of the players have to be viewed by the NPCs they interact with. Some actions might logically automatically fail the task they are engaged in, or at least move the attitude of the person they are talking to away from indifferent. Some actions will give them a bonus to the action they're currently taking. The scenario as written is based on taking a "baseline" path through the adventure; derails can happen in either direction.
Per the GtPSOP we are supposed to reward creative solutions, how do you reconcile your limit (i read that as 'eliminate' in context) table variance position with that?
I think you're reading into his post. I don't think he's saying that PC actions should never ever have an effect beyond what the scenario assumes.
At the very least, TetsujinOni, don't change the key verb in his summary statement and then ask him to reconcile a position you're pushing on him instead of the position he actually takes.
I can support a lawful/good/principled character, who adopts an attitude of 'I won't harm you, but I'm not under any obligation to protect you, either.'.
How far is too far?
Leaving an enemy to die would be neutral, but leaving a fellow pathfinder to bleed out and taking no steps to help him would be evil. More to the point, it would be a direct contravention of the requirement to cooperate with each other. You don't have to use an expensive potoion on them, nor place yourself in unreasonable danger; and if it makes no sense tactically to use a healing spell whilst under attack then so be it, death happens, but to simply walk away from a fellow pathfinder without making any attempt to provide assistance would result in the evil ban-hammer coming down at my table.
Batman doesn't take the "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" line with Robin, now does he? He even tries to save the bad guy at first. It's only when the bad guy tries to wipe out an entire city that Batman's takes that line. Most GMs would have had a 'chat' with the offending player long before it came to that (I would hope!)
|
|
I believe if a Pathfinder comes to the point of withholding assistance to a fellow Pathfinder, it would be because the actions of that fellow Pathfinder were deemed reprehensible enough as to consider that fellow Pathfinder no longer worthy of Pathfinder membership.
We are not talking withholding assistance just because one feels like it. Snorter gave specific reasons to withhold aid. It's not evil to protect others from evil by not saving the life of an evildoer. The first Pathfinder did not cause harm to the fellow Pathfinder. They, in all likely-hood, got themselves into the mess they are in. It is also likely they were not in the process of saving the life of the first Pathfinder. More likely they caused the problem, or through lack of cooperation got into dire straights. I certainly wouldn't consider that PvP.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The actions of the players have to be viewed by the NPCs they interact with. Some actions might logically automatically fail the task they are engaged in, or at least move the attitude of the person they are talking to away from indifferent. Some actions will give them a bonus to the action they're currently taking. The scenario as written is based on taking a "baseline" path through the adventure; derails can happen in either direction.
Per the GtPSOP we are supposed to reward creative solutions, how do you reconcile your limit (i read that as 'eliminate' in context) table variance position with that?
You are correct when you state that an NPC in a scenario views the actions of players. Variance is introduced in how the NPC, as directed by the GM, responds to what was viewed. It is my opinion that the NPC should respond as directed in the writing of the module, not the opinion/feeling of the GM.
Lets give an example. The players in a scenario need to convince a NPC to ferry them to a nearby island. The scenario dictates that a Diplomacy check of DC 20 is needed to convince the NPC (and may even add "variance" such as "A 10gp bribe adds a cumulative +1 to the Diplomacy role"). This is the path the scenario presents to challenge the players; a skill check. All a players needs to do is succeed on a DC 20 check.
Things that the GM should not do to add undue variance that was not written into the module:
1. The player making the roll gets a -2 penalty because he just got out of a long combat a few minutes ago and must be stinky with sweat. I guess the character should have cleaned up first. That will teach him for next time!
2. The player and the NPC are the same race. The player gets a +2 bonus to the role. In fact, make it +4. They served in the same military organization! Why not?
3. The player has his character greet the NPC with "Hey Sailor!" - This NPC considers that rude and his attitude shifts to unfriendly. The DC is increased by 5. Maybe the player should be more conscientious of how their character speaks. People that dont stay "in character" at all times at this table should learn to do so quickly.
Even if a player were to have their character act like a total jerk such that, were they acting like that "in real life," they would never get a ride from the NPC, you as GM should not change the scenario to reflect that. The NPC could respond to poor character actions (like rudeness) in a few ways
1. Have a fit and storm off, thus making all the players fail the scenario because they cannot secure passage.
2. The NPC could shake its head, say "You are a strange one, arent you? You need a ride?" and allow the scenario to continue as written.
One of the above responses follows the Society guidelines and provides a fair, fun experience for the players and one response does not. I know how I would want the GM at my table to respond.
Regarding "creative solutions" I suggest you read that part of the Organized Play guide again. The section you note discusses how a GM should respond to the creative solutions that players come up with to overcome challenges in the scenario. Players get to use creative solutions to solve challenges; not GMs.
A "creative solution" in the above example would be a player saying "I have the perk that gives me my own ship. We take that to the island." A "creative solution" is not the GM saying "You made the NPC mad. I could introduce another NPC and allow you to continue (an actual creative solution as outlined in the guide), but I think I will just fail you here. Next time min-max your rolls better and watch your mouths at the table."
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Re: "Batman rule"
Actually I can see this a lot. The "Took him out back and tortured him to death" PCs above wouldn't get any love from Dexios, minimal love from Rey (and only because he's Shadow Lodge), and I could picture a follower of Pharasma feeling similar. "You're bleeding out in combat? Well if I can stop this thing and you're still alive, a stabalize might save the day."
(aside wasn't there an Andoran faction mission where you kill a pathfinder they think went rogue?)
It also goes back to the 'greedy healers' arguments I've seen. If Rey is playing with a party of 4th level characters, he's going to be annoyed if he's expected to burn his wand of CLW/Potions to heal the guy who hasn't bought his own healing. (aside: Rey does have a potion of mage armor and has shield on his spells known, specifically so he *can* tank up for a fight and play flank buddy, and maybe take a hit or two if need be.) In the healing case it's "I'm not going to let you die. I also am not healing you to full every time."*
Re: Modifying an an encounter. There is a rule for modifying an encounter, it's called circumstance bonuses. If the PC comes trapsing out of the sewers, covered in filth and wounds, and walks into the ballroom of the duchess, then why is that max -2 out of line? Likewise, if the character recognizes the guard's unit and chats up the units distinguished history, why would a +1 or 2 be out of line. It's a Role Playing game, so encourage role playing.**
*
**
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't consider it PvP either, but I do consider it jerk-hood of the first degree. You like to steal things and I'm a super lawful paladin of Abadar? Fine, we definitely don't get along. But you are bleeding because you stabbed the giant construct so it turned on you instead of someone else in the party? I don't care how much the paladin dislikes the rogue, letting them bleed out is uncalled for. It's definitely against Pathfinder ethics.I believe if a Pathfinder comes to the point of withholding assistance to a fellow Pathfinder, it would be because the actions of that fellow Pathfinder were deemed reprehensible enough as to consider that fellow Pathfinder no longer worthy of Pathfinder membership.
We are not talking withholding assistance just because one feels like it. Snorter gave specific reasons to withhold aid. It's not evil to protect others from evil by not saving the life of an evildoer. The first Pathfinder did not cause harm to the fellow Pathfinder. They, in all likely-hood, got themselves into the mess they are in. It is also likely they were not in the process of saving the life of the first Pathfinder. More likely they caused the problem, or through lack of cooperation got into dire straights. I certainly wouldn't consider that PvP.
I normally delete quote-walls when I reply, but I decided to leave in what you replied to in order to show how off you are. Don was talking about someone getting themselves into a mess, getting what they deserve for it, and then someone (with no mention of class or alignment!) declining to wipe their ass for them.
You then call it being a jerk, and liken it to a "super-lawful paladin" (you're the first to mention alignment and class; Don made no such distinction) declining to heal someone who made a heroic sacrifice (very much the opposite of what Don was talking about) just because they don't like him (as opposed to because he was being an idiot).
Don't try to pass it off like it's the same kind of thing. Your grudges/agendas are not an excuse to put words in people's mouths.
|
|
Don't try to pass it off like it's the same kind of thing. Your grudges/agendas are not an excuse to put words in people's mouths.
Melissa's response was fine. Don started out making a very generic statement and then said the situation was "probably" because the PC got himself in that situation through his own doing. That's always the case actually, but I've found it's open to interpretation. You can make an argument for anything.
It's not evil to protect others from evil by not saving the life of an evildoer.
Pathfinders aren't evil. If you believe that a Pathfinder is evil, then that's something for the GM to enforce, not the players.
I believe if a Pathfinder comes to the point of withholding assistance to a fellow Pathfinder, it would be because the actions of that fellow Pathfinder were deemed reprehensible enough as to consider that fellow Pathfinder no longer worthy of Pathfinder membership.
It's not your call to decide whether a PC is worthy of being a Pathfinder. Just because we find a PC to be unworthy (for whatever reason), it's not justification enough to let them die.
The problem with not cooperating with each other (treating a PC with special rules is not cooperating), besides not following the Pathfinder tenets, is that it has a cascading effect on the session. You had better believe that if you purposefully leave someone's PC to die and they somehow survive, they're going to do everything their power to kill your PC (short of PVP). You destroyed any trust you had inside and outside of the game. It's quite likely that your PC (and maybe the party) could be on the receiving end of trouble in the future. So you can see, it creates bad feelings at the table. This is why I would dissuade any player thinking of doing something like that at a table I'm GMing.
|
|
Just so everyone's clear, I've never acted against another PC, nor have I considered it necessary. I've actually gone the extra mile to make sure other factions complete their missions, even the Chelaxians(!). Last year, a new player was asking for help with her PC, and blurted out her faction to me. I told her to keep that under her hat, and when I was on my own and found some infernal treasure, gave her the nod that she 'might want to go look through there'.
I believe if a Pathfinder comes to the point of withholding assistance to a fellow Pathfinder, it would be because the actions of that fellow Pathfinder were deemed reprehensible enough as to consider that fellow Pathfinder no longer worthy of Pathfinder membership.
That's exactly the situations I'm talking about, yes.
(aside wasn't there an Andoran faction mission where you kill a pathfinder they think went rogue?)
There is, and I've played it. And I made sure of completing that mission, after making a big play of worrying about the guy's safety.
(We KO'd him, and had to get him out of the building, past a really BIG guard, so bundled him into a crate. I stabilised the guy, argued that he should be padded for comfort, given a large air-hole - then as we wheeled him out, and the others were ahead, I stayed to guard the crate with the other Andoren, stuck my finger through the hole, and summoned a poisonous viper to share his box for a few minutes.)But that scenario alone (plus probably more) shows that, while there is a standing order for Pathfinders to work together, that membership comes with certain expectations and responsibilities, that you should be worthy of that treatment, and act in a way that doesn't bring the Society into disrepute.
Those are the situations I'm talking about. Not something as silly as 'I don't like Chelaxians', or 'I think your class/race is overpowered', or 'Don't bring firearms into MY game', or any of the hot topics that seem to press some people's berserk button.
I'm talking about wilful stupidity, 'accidentally' targetting PCs with fireballs, starting brawls with legitimate authority for no reason, obnoxious behaviour to NPCs who should have been our allies, but now won't piss on us if we were on fire.
Behaviour that derails a session, wastes everyone's time, risks blowing the main mission and many of the other faction missions.
I'd like to think that the GM would have stepped in by that point, but they may be unsure of the limits of their authority, they may have the attitude of 'Let the dice fall where they may!'. They may not realise there's a problem, or be waiting (hoping?) for the other players to fix it in-character.
I've not had to deal with a player like that, thankfully, but if I did, I'd hope there was an amnesty for any corrective action that had to be taken, to bring the session back on track. Assuming you try to do so in the least disruptive way possible.
If you've just rescued a bunch of zero-level hostages, do you really want the trigger-happy pyromaniac getting to his feet, and 'accidentally-on-purpose' blowing them to bits?
Or is it more efficient to dump him on a gurney, and push him round?
With the proviso that, 'if we have to run, I ain't being slowed down by him'?
|
|
Anecdote time.
Not interfering with an unnecessary non-deadly bar fight is very different than watching an ally bleed out. Did your PC die?
Here's my example. A young kid (12 years old?) at our table at Gencon 2012 started an unnecessary fight and we still backed him up. If he failed (at level 1) he would have died. Should we have let him die? Hmmm... You tell me. He was definitely unworthy and could have caused us to fail the main mission while he was messing around.
This discussion seems really academic to me, everyone has been very reasonable at every PFS game I've ever attended. If they weren't reasonable, I was.
It's similar to the discussion about evil PCs at the table that we had last year. The one where everyone got upset. Can someone tell me exactly how many evil PCs we had at Gencon this year with over 700+ tables run? I'm guessing none.
|
|
Kids gotta learn sometime.
Was his parent there? Did the GM give him a chance to change his action?
With kids it's all about the moment with no thought to the repercussions. Was he treated as a 12 year old (with more leeway with his actions) or an adult?
I think the heart of this discussion is individual rights versus community rights. Are players free to control the actions of their characters or must they always act for the benefit of the group (or another individual in their group) regardless of that action being in their best interest or not.
And if player A is being a jerk does he forfeit the right to community aid from player B or does player B have to aid the jerk simply because they belong to the same group and are both "supposedly" trying to accomplish the same thing?
|
|
I'm looking forward to a career of exploring the nature of Lawful Good with this tiefling cleric. On the one hand, he's a cleric of probably the most militant LG deity, and as an oni-spawn tends to be... passionate at times (as a roleplaying element, I elect not to use my bite attack unless I have a reason to be "riled up"). But on the other hand, a LG tiefling knows all too well the dangers of prejudice and assumptions.
This will be fun. :)
|
|
Kids gotta learn sometime.
I thought it would be a lot less disruptive (and more fun) if we actually gave him a hand, even though he'd been doing his own solo mission effectively and not helping us at all.
The GM gave him the "are you sure?", but didn't railroad him. Interestingly, the dad let him do his thing without saying anything. I'm sure the Dad spoke to him after the game. I'd prefer that the Dad talk to him afterwards as opposed to me "teaching" him a lesson by letting his 1st PC get killed.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what you're saying here, is that the lawful good person is actually lawful neutral.
Alignments are not absolutes and yours will not change due to a single occurrence unless it is soo egregious (cold-blooded murder, etc) as to be obvious to everyone. A lawful good or chaotic evil character/NPC/creature might do something neutral from time to time without fear of their alignment suddenly changing, just like a neutral one might perform an act of kindness without suddenly becoming good.
In regards to character vs. character, I have seen a few from time to time that could qualify as creating party strife. You have to cooperate, yes, but there are reasonable limits to cooperation. All members of the society assume that the cooperation is reciprocal. If a character continually performs actions that are contrary to that cooperation, it would make sense that they would change the way they deal with that character. Since leaving the table will cause the player to likely lose credit for the scenario and be denied playing it again, there is a disincentive to do that. Since PvP is also banned, you cannot take direct action against the problem character. But, all of this is accademic since in most cases, it is the player that is the jerk, not the character. "That's what my character would do" is not an excuse for being a jerk. I would expect the GM to step in if/when these issues arise.
Even if a player were to have their character act like a total jerk such that, were they acting like that "in real life," they would never get a ride from the NPC, you as GM should not change the scenario to reflect that."
There is nothing restricting a GM from applying circumstance bonuses/penalties to skill checks based on the situation. The core rules encourage it and PFS does not restrict it. I would likely make an adjustment if the characters approached said boat pilot and, rudely, ordered him to give them a ride. If they act like jerks, then his reactions should reflect that. The pilot might expect double the normal amount of payment. In any case, to ignore or disregard players actions for the sake of running as written is poor GMing IMO. OTOH, I would never make it impossible for the players to continue the scenario unless they were intentionally trying to sabotage or break the adventure. In the end, we are all suppose to be there to participate in the scenario and both sides know it is to be run as written. If, as a player, you force the GM too far off the reservation, then you are demonstrating a lack of good faith and good play. We all have to remember that organized play is more limiting than open-rules, home-games and attempt to stay of target from both sides of the screen.
[/soapbox]