Mike,
Like Nolen said, would it be easier to solve this by adding the paladin's need for an atonement at the end of the scenario to the list of things already hand-waved in PFS play by saying that since he was "ordered" on the mission by either the Society or his Faction, that whoever sent him covers the cost of the atonement. That way there is no cost out of pocket for the character, or his party members, and the character can be played with less stress and more cooperation during the scenario. And it would apply only to this specific situation, since a player whose only level-appropriate character is a paladin would be getting screwed over otherwise. It would only need to be added to the FAQ and not the Guide, because this would probably be a very rare occurrence. I would rather see this than see the banning of the archetype or the familiar.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Mike,
Like Nolen said, would it be easier to solve this by adding the paladin's need for an atonement at the end of the scenario to the list of things already hand-waved in PFS play by saying that since he was "ordered" on the mission by either the Society or his Faction, that whoever sent him covers the cost of the atonement. That way there is no cost out of pocket for the character, or his party members, and the character can be played with less stress and more cooperation during the scenario. And it would apply only to this specific situation, since a player whose only level-appropriate character is a paladin would be getting screwed over otherwise. It would only need to be added to the FAQ and not the Guide, because this would probably be a very rare occurrence. I would rather see this than see the banning of the archetype or the familiar.
This sounds like a very clean and reasonable solution.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know ... I've been thinking about it, and I have an odd comparison.
It's not really quite the same thing as a paladin, but, it's similar in kind.
I play a character named Qa'Pelos, who is a Osirion Living Monolith. His RP is all about protecting the ancient ancestors of his culture, but, he has very strong feelings about respecting the dead in general. Now, if a creature is monstrous, it's one thing - but, for the most part, he believes that molesting the dead, or worse - the resting places of the dead - is abhorrent.
I'm not saying that no one can go near a body, or loot them, or go into a tomb ... but, he feels respect should be given, and things done tastefully, but wantonly desecrating a tomb, destroying relics, or collecting teeth or ears would be just kind of over the line.
So, I realize that there's a mild conflict that could occur with a lot of Pathfinders in-character. But, I used to love the fact that my regular gaming group used to take that into consideration when we'd play, and it became sort of a running thing that they knew what would be beyond the pale for him, and would adjust for it. Even when it was something that was from a faction mission or something, they'd go out of the way to not offend his sensibilities. Every once in awhile at an open game with other players, they'd have (or I'd have to) explain to characters who'd never seen Qa'Pelos what it was all about. Most often, they'd think that it was interesting RP, or just shrug their shoulders and go on.
There was "that one guy" who insisted that he was going to chop the evil necromancer (or whatever the BBEG was)into 2-inch cubes, after he was dead. Insisted. the GM finally basically had to tell him to stop being a jerk, and said that if nothing else the party wasn't going to wait the hours it would take to accomplish the task and he'd better just move on.
I've been lucky with the character, and have always appreciated those who were willing to play with a character that could complicate things, but always felt especially fond of the players who went out of their way to make a good story with me, even if it was inconvenient.
I would say both players are a little bit at fault for bringing PC's that potentially make it hard to play as a team. Other than inexperience, how could a player expect their choice to not cause problems? A paladin who lives to destroy evil joining and organization which is known to have them as part of the team?!? A wizard joining an organization that is known to have people that just live to destroy his little buddy?!?
Issues like this are the reason I won't play either a paladin or a caster with evil summons or familiars in PFS play. I won't play them in a regular campaign until I know the other people pretty well.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This still just boils down to the fact that neither the imp-friended wizard nor the oath-bound paladin would be extended an invitation to the society in the first place. The decemvirate and Venture-Captains would not knowingly bring characters in that, they know, will be unable/unwilling to cooperate on future missions.
Honestly, if I were the GM and this specific arrangement occurred, I would give the two players a few minutes to figure out a solution for themselves. If not, I would just ban both characters from the table. It's not fair to the other players to be forced to deal with the issue, and it's definitely not my problem to decide which, technically legal character, has more merit and should be allowed to play.
It's easy to see why a Fanatic Paladin would be a problem with the Society. But what specifically makes the Wizard an issue? He's lawful NEUTRAL. The Imp? he has it under orders to behave. Probably one of the prime alignments the Society would look for. (Is there really any doubt that the Society is NOT a "good" organisation?)
But isn't there an entire faction in the Society that is largely paladin-ish people that could feel duty bound to destroy the imp?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's easy to see why a Fanatic Paladin would be a problem with the Society. But what specifically makes the Wizard an issue? He's lawful NEUTRAL. The Imp? he has it under orders to behave. Probably one of the prime alignments the Society would look for. (Is there really any doubt that the Society is NOT a "good" organisation?)
No, the society is not a good organization, nor does it advocate evil. The fact that the wizard willfully and openly deals with devils and makes pacts with them should draw a warning flag from many of the leadership, not necessarily just from the Silver Crusade. Humans (demi-humans, whatever) are know to foolishly think they can contain the evil that is a demon/devil and bend their wills. Just because a fiend is currently "under control" does not mean it is not conniving to free itself, and subtly trying to corrupt it's controller.
The point is, both characters are legal for play, so by saying that either one has more/less merit than the other is a douche move by the GM. The first course of action is to let the two affected players determine a resolution. Lacking that, the GM has to make a fair decision and that has to be in favor of the entire table, not just to one player or himself. The only fair resolution IMO is to deny both characters from participating. Hopefully, the players have alternate characters that can play the scenario. IF you create a borderline, incompatible character, as a player you should be prepared for times with the character will not mesh with the other players at the table, and/or the GM, and have an alternate character.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Bob,
I'm in agreement with you on your examples. Hypothetical question for you.
Two players show up at a store event, both are new to the tables. One has a Paladin with the OAth, the other a Witch with an Imp. The Paladin player graciously offers to 'come back next week' or grab an iconic.
Next week, the group gets together with the same two players. The Paladin player, believing the scenario is 'tailor made' for his Paladin wants to play, but the Witch player doesn't want to play an iconic or miss the scenario. We'll say for the sake of argument that they can't come to a civil agreement. Would you kick them both? Or would you let the paladin player's actions the week before colour your decision? Just asking because I would, but I don't pretend to be fair.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So it boils down to, Lazar, that if two legal characters were at the table, you'd reject the Paladin every time? The Paladin would have to lose class features every time?I wouldn't reject either. As it's been stated before, it's the Players who need to work it out and make choices. The Paladin has their own choices to make with consequences depending on situation. I'm not going to say that the Wizard should walk to make the Paladin happy or vice versa. I don't have to and won't boot either from the table.
The rules for the archetype and Society play make the following quite clear.
1. The Paladin can't attack the Wizard's familiar, as per the campaign anti-PVP rules.
2. If the Paladin stays with the party, and ignores the Wizard's familiar he's going to either have to atone or lose the SPECIFIC OATH abilities until he does so. I certainly would not and have not said that I'd strip him of his complete class powers.
I never said 'complete class powers'. And why not say the Wizard/Witch can't take the Imp along? It's the same effect, stripping a character of powers because of his adventuring companions. You are punishing the player of a legal character because of his character choice, and you're choosing one over the other, every time.
And again it all comes down to the players. The GM does not control how the Mage's Imp familiar acts, the player does. So if the player is having the imp do random, or not so random, evil deeds, then the player is being a jerk and could be booted from the table. If the player is not using the imp as a bypass around the "no evil characters" rules, then leave him alone.
|
|
As it's been stated before, it's the Players who need to work it out and make choices
And if they cannot, it falls to the GM to resolve the issue for them. The rest of the players at the table should not have to suffer the argument. If, as the GM, I determine that their issues are going to detract from the game, then I will make a decision that is in the greater good, not just to make a single player happy. As I said, despite my personal opinions on either character, they are legal and have just as much right to play as any other. However, I am not going to blindly follow the rules and force everyone at the table to deal with it. IMO, both players would be violating the Will Wheaton "rule."
|
|
Hypothetical question for you
If the player's did not agree to exchange weeks as part of the original discussion, then I would take each session separately. I might remind the witch player that the paladin player gracefully sat out the previous time and they should respond in kind, but there is no requirement for that. Again, both players have a right to play. I would again leave it up to the players to decide. If the witch player is insistent, then it is starting to show a level of doucheness that I would not tolerate long-term and would probably warn them that their participation in general is at risk.
The Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play has this to say:
"Cooperate: The Society places no moral obligations upon its members, so agents span all races, creeds, and motivations. At any given time, a Pathfinder lodge might house a fiend-summoning Chelaxian, an Andoren freedom fighter, an antiquities-obsessed Osirian necromancer, and a friendly Taldan raconteur. Pathfinder agents are expected to respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering a helping hand." (bold emphasis mine)
It's right there in black and white: fiend summoners are allowed, and anyone signing up with the Pathfinders is signing up to either help them or leave them alone. Attacking or banishing their familiars is certainly not "stay[ing] out of each other's affairs". It seems like joining is a foolish move on the paladin's part, since doing so means swearing to not interfere with his literally devil-worshiping comrades. What "exceptional circumstances" are compelling the character to ally with these people who by charter "consistently offend her moral code"?
I also agree that the a reasonable level of non-jerkiness of players needs to be the standard. Just because the Pathfinder Society says the fiend-summoner is legit doesn't mean that the player should be using it to actively harass another player.
|
|
PFS has generally done a solid job in keeping as many character options as possible open for player use, but the Oathbound archetype with an Oath Against Fiends is just screaming conflict when it's allowed in a living campaign where one of ten accepted factions represents a nation riddled with devils. If the archetype was removed from the additional resources list, it wouldn't be the first time an archetype was omitted from Society play for conflict-causing reasons (wild rager, I'm looking at you).
|
|
Removed a post that will just fan the flame war. I think everyone who has wanted to make their point in this conversation has. It is apparent that people aren't going to change their mind about which side is right or wrong. I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread.
Both the paladin (which I have a 4th level one and have never encountered this problem) and the imp-wielding wizard (which I also have a 5th level one and have never encountered this problem) are both legal for play. I've never encountered this problem as a GM at any table either.
My advice is, before you create a character, think about how it will interact in organized play, at a table of six characters. If you think you may have problems that would lead you to not play the class "properly" then it may be wise to choose a class you think you can play properly without causing problems.