|
So the party is beating on this Bearded Devil. The alchemist is down, after taking massive hit point damage from 2 claws and the beard. The two party clerics heal him back up a bit above zero. The alchemist, staying down, elects to stab at the Devil with a silver dagger. The Devil fights back, hits with a claw, knocks the alchemist back unconscious, at which point the player helpfully suggests to the GM that the Devil could attack a different character with the second claw attack - which the Devil in fact does.
Next round, same thing - Clerics bring alchemist back to above zero, alchemist stabs at Devil, Devil hits with one claw, and elects to use second claw against a different character.
Now consider the Devil's position. He knows he is not going to win the fight, in a round or two he will be defeated and returned to hell. He is evil. Wouldn't it be more evil, (especially considering that the alchemist isn't doing total defense or playing dead) to hit the alchemist with the second claw, which then activates the beard attack, most likely killing the alchemist outright? In other words wouldn't an evil outsider prefer to kill rather than randomly spread ineffectual damage around different party members?
On the other hand this was a PFS game, does the alchemist in this case "deserve" to die? What would you do if you were the GM?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a dude is knocked out, healed up barely to consciousness and decides to attack instead of full-defense, he should get both hits. Especially if he got away with it 2 times in a row. Player stupidity should never be a cause for the GM to pull-punches. Kill the idiot player-character.
Your status in Hell is determined by the size of your honor guard. I vote devil kills alchemist.
|
As a GM I decide where the multiple attacks go BEFORE rolling them. If they all hit, the player has a bad day. If it is a mindless or has a low Int, then I will randomly decide who it attacks. If it is smart, it wants to win or survive as bad as the players. A devil would love to take someone out with it. How could it really tell once a single claw hits that it believes it killed the PC? If the PC kept popping back up, the devil would try harder to put him down. If the player is willing to take chances, the devil should too.
|
If something big bad and nasty puts you on the floor, and you are only a few hitpoints from going unconscious again, stay put. Pretend to be dead. If you can, crawl clear. But picking on something when you are that close to dead? I would have offed him the first time he did the wake up and stab routine. Certainly on the second.
|
I also GM by the basic rule that NPCs will switch to conscious, fighting PCs.
I also use the basic trigger of 'kill him and make him stay dead' is at least one healing-up back to consciousness. I'm reluctant to even set the bar as low as one reviviciation for NPCs to start taking out the helpless. 'Defeated' PCs just keep getting back on their feet though? Yep, there comes a time where even stupid NPCs will thwak heroes to make sure they 'stay down'.
Another example that I struggled with was a scenario that had an evil cleric as the BBEG, who of course had Death Knell prepared.
Eventually the BBEG was in a position where it'd be just silly for him NOT to use the spell. And since he was INT 8 I decided that he'd think it was a 'good idea' to NOT risk a concentration check to cast defensively. (Situation: Still had most of the party trying to kill him, and had dropped not one but TWO martial PCs twice each. And was enjoying a recent streak of melee misses from the remaining heroes...)
Sure, it was partially a bone to be thrown, since the spell was going to provoke 3 AoOs. I preferred to give the party 3 chances (none of which were likely to really succeed) with the dice in their hands rather than 1 chance with the dice in mine to prevent the spell from going off.
Luck was with the party and the alchemist barely hit the cleric's buffed AC with a confirmed crit. The accumulated damage was such that the cleric failed his concentration check.
Appropriateness was served AND the players got to enjoy narrowly averting disaster!
|
|
While we may agree or disagree with the tactics of this GM, I think the best course of action would be to talk with this GM in private. I know I appreciate feedback whenever I GM to help me run a better, and tighter game.
/Sometimes too tight.
//The last 3 times I've run First Steps, Part 1 I've "TPK'd" the party.
///AKA make them all pass out and I steal their weapons and run off.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, a fraction of an outsider's high Challenge Rating comes from its intelligence (including years of experience observing its betters perform amazing feats). Especially in higher levels, an outsider can pack as much intelligence as the party's wizard, as much wisdom as the party's cleric, and as much charisma as the party's bard, giving the creature immense reasoning skills.
In your situation, I would have let the player get away with being revived and attacking once, only clawing the alchemist once for his - as that devil might see it - arrogance. On the second instance of prone hubris, the devil would have torn him up and given his corpse devil chills. Most of the players I've judged for understand that logic, and few tend to tease evil outsiders. In higher level scenarios, the outsider might be less forgiving, even electing to kill the presumptuous cleric(s) immediately afterwords.
Although I may chuckle inwardly with chagrin when a player performs a particularly outrageous action that should lead to the character's death, I almost never think of a character as "deserving to die." One of my strategies as a GM is to show the player how tough, dangerous, and/or malicious a creature is through its actions. As the alchemist wakes up, the barbazu's foot-claw might smash a flagstone in half, narrowly missing the fallen character's head in an attempt not to trip over the presumed corpse; this demonstrates how the character's present position leaves him extremely vulnerable, but not so vulnerable that he feels the need to move to avoid collateral damage. After seeing the alchemist wake up for the first time, the barbazu's eyes might bulge in amazement that one of the fallen might rise again. Once the clerics dish out more healing, the barbazu might narrow its eyes and glare at the fallen alchemist as if daring him to move again.
All of these are narrative signals that telegraph how the GM/barbazu might act, giving the players a fair opportunity to play it safe. Even then, some might be reckless, and some might act out of necessity (the alchemist might be the only one capable of ending the encounter). I feel that when GMing a Pathfinder Society scenario for strangers, it is only fair to drop these cues - particularly for lower Tier tables.
|
I concur that the pc deservered it. I also feel that when an enermy knocks a pc out after the second of a full attack when they can no longer take a move action, if it still has attacks remaining, if no one else is in range of those attacks(remember you can 5 foot inbetween attacks), there is no reason to stop the full attack and not finish off the pc.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it ethical to kill character's when their players do silly things repeatedly?
I don't think this falls into the realm of 'ethics' at all.
Should a GM kill a PC when the player does something silly?
Seems to me it's totally dependent on the situation, the player, and to some extent whether the critter in question would do it. There is certainly no hard and fast answer you can post as a blanket statement.
What Would Ogre Do?
I'd probably do something ridiculous like having the devil pick up the body and use it to bludgeon the cleric who keeps healing the alchemist.
|
|
The Bearded Devil should have killed the alchemist the first time. The Bearded showed the alchemist mercy by not killing him and that would cause the bearded devil to lose face with the other devils should one find out about it.
The alchemist should have played possem and not done a stupid thing like stabing a beaded devil with a nonmagic sliver dagger that would just piss of the breaded devil. Hit Devils hard and hope you kill them if you don't your toast don't expect them to not kill you. besides squishies have no business near a devil. GM's should not encourage stupid play by their players. Besides where was the parties Paldin in case of devil summon Planer ally 1-800-PALADIN
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was a player, and I dropped an NPC, and then his buddy zapped him and he woke up and tried to stab me? I'd full-attack his arse into the ground, and then next round I'd single out the healer and beat him into a bloody pulp as fast as I possibly could.
And if I were the GM, running an intelligent enemy, I'd do exactly the same thing.
|
|
Say thank you to the player for the suggestion but role play the Devil's action to be in their character.
I've seen situations where the party cleric elects NOT to heal the downed PC to attempt to SAVE them. Given the right situation for the bad guy.. that's a coup de grace waiting to happen.
The social contract, as it is, also assumes that the players don't metagame the social contract on behalf of their characters. I had a situation DMing back in 2006 LG days where two characters (a very effective melee character and cleric, both playing down) left the field of battle where one PC was dead, and two other PCs (5 total) were unconscious in the face of several raging orc barbarians, one of whom was standing adjacent to an unconscious character. When making the move to leave the field of battle, one of the players announced, "Dave would never do it...."
Maybe Dave wouldn't do it, but the raging CE orc barbarians would. I also think that's part of the social contract.
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
The devil knows he's about to get killed. He isn't too bright (since they average 6 Intelligence), but he's likely to endure a great deal of mockery around the water cooler back in the Hells.
Depending on his objectives, I might have the devil delay, hissing "Your magic may be potent, but that will not save your ally. Let us reach some bargain, or I slay him ere I fall!"
If they refuse to negotiate, they can't complain they weren't warned before he unloads on the alchemist.
|
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
To argue against "realistically bloodthirsty" behavior from villains, I've seen players whose characters were doing their jobs (getting in there and kicking arse) who were hung out to dry by teammates who just didn't have their act together or who were unwilling to do their part.
In one game Living Greyhawk I ran, an archer (a 6th-level ranger) didn't bother to stock any arrows to bypass DR. (Some of the other players requested that I dock him experience, since the idiot didn't contribute any actual damage during the scenario: Every opponent had DR).
I remember a fighter who refused to fight because he was a "mercenary" and no one had offered to pay him. The rest of us were cut to ribbons. The same character backed off and pulled out a bow to avoid engaging a demon that was mangling the party's "squishies". He didn't have any archery feats, cold-iron arrows, or a composite bow...
Sometimes the party needs a break, because they've already suffered enough dealing with a dunderhead.