An "Evil Act" to stop an Evil Act?

[Marthian]

So we had a "Lawful Neutral" ranger today that instead of letting us try and talk to the non-hostile guards and instead shot one of them for a faction mission.

Eventually after some rounds of him shooting her (and us trying to prevent him from doing so), I decide I wanted to grapple him to prevent him from hurting the guard further. Apparently, he decided that since a Grapple was "PvP" that I would be doing an "Evil" act and get that marked on my sheet, even though I would be PREVENTING an evil act.

Can someone explain the logic to me behind this? (He also said Charm Person from someone else for the same reasons would also be Evil. This isn't the GM by the way, it's a player.)

[Shifty]

That sounds a bit...special.

[Tiny Coffee Golem]

I think perhaps he needs a dictionary.

[Alexander_Damocles]

He can say whatever he wants. The GM is the arbitrator of what actually happens. Personally, I would have pulled the player aside and asked what he was doing.

[Jason S]

Grappling, using Charm Person, or trying to prevent him from doing something is PVP. Pathfinders mind their own affairs.

What you were trying to do was obviously not evil, but it was definitely PVP as it's defined in the Organized Play Guide.

The ranger was probably trying to complete a faction mission where he needed some item off one of the guards, or potentially he needed to kill one of them. By diplomatically bypassing them, he would fail his mission. I had a mission exactly like that in "Exiles of Winter".

And people say that faction table talk is bad. It's good because it would have prevented this. Also, the GM should have been able to arbitrate and explain to the other players what was happenning.

[Marthian]

Jason S wrote:

Grappling, using Charm Person, or trying to prevent him from doing something is PVP. Pathfinders mind their own affairs.

What you were trying to do was obviously not evil, but it was definitely PVP as it's defined in the Organized Play Guide.

The ranger was probably trying to complete a faction mission where he needed some item off one of the guards, or potentially he needed to kill one of them. By diplomatically bypassing them, he would fail his mission. I had a mission exactly like that in "Exiles of Winter".

And people say that faction table talk is bad. It's good because it would have prevented this. Also, the GM should have been able to arbitrate and explain to the other players what was happenning.

Actually, his faction mission was to make them leave "by wit or sword." We also had a bard clearly capable of just diplomacy.

[Quandary]

well, this player obviously didn't possess much wit of his own.
i mean, his charade of haranguing you for 'evil acts' kind of falls flat when his own act was certainly qualifiable as 'evil'.
(but then again, there's that lack of 'wit': he was mixing up the issue he was trying to convey, the rule against PvP, with 'evil acts'... )
i mean, even if he didn't want to use diplomacy (i don't know why, the mission apparently doesn't bar it), all he has to do is some how provoke them to attack him first, then nobody else would be interfering with his unprovoked attack upon them.
hopefully this guy doesn't try to play characters with average INT, WIS, or CHA... it doesn't sound like it would turn out well.
I would just talk to the GM about the guy causing trouble for everybody else, which is really the main concern of the PFS rule agaisnt PVP. If PVP bars evil alignments (i.e. everybody should be good or neutral), having PCs act agaisnt evil seems pretty much par for course (since the players are supposed to be good aligned). If he's trying to twist rules to support this, which is basically just trying to justify evilness in the game, I would not be amenable to him playing in any games I'm aware of.

[Jussi Leinonen]

PvP is forbidden in PFS, but it's not necessarily evil. The rules against evil and the rules against PvP are separate and exist for different reasons.

In your case, the act was probably PvP but not evil, which means that it shouldn't be marked on your Chronicle Sheet as an evil act.

[TwilightKnight]

It's hard to know exactly what was happening here, but if one player is trying to kill an NPC despite the rest of the players trying to stop him, this might fall under the "don't be a jerk rule," especially if the player knew he had a companion (bard) easily able to complete the mission without just resorting to an arrow barrage. I hate it when a player invokes the no PvP rule to justify their own actions. In those cases, the player is almost always wrong.

[Mike Lindner]

My own opinion is that it isn't even PvP to grapple him if the intent is simply to stop and subdue him, not harm the other player. This does depend on the players and how I think they would handle it. That doesn't account for the faction mission, which definitely complicates things. I would talk to the player out of character and find out why they chose that course of action (given they have multiple avenues available) and make a judgement call. I wouldn't allow another player to shut down their opportunity to complete the faction mission as that is clearly in the realm of PvP.

[TwilightKnight]

The Guide says, "you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character-ever." empahasis mine
So if you want to be an uber rules-lawyer, it doesn't say you cannot injure another character, restrain them, etc., you just cannot kill them. Of course, I do not support that position, just saying. ;-)

[Mike Lindner]

To me, this situation is ripe for RP, but could easily go sour. There are folks who would take getting grappled by a fellow pathfinder in stride (as a player). I suppose the line I draw in the sand is simply, "would this reduce the fun of the grappled player?" The moment combat breaks out or the grappler tries to harm the other PC I would give the grappled PC a free check to escape and they would conveniently succeed.

I have allowed PCs to smack other PCs upside the head (doing nonlethal damage even) when everyone was having fun and I knew no one was going to call "no PvP!"

[Michael Foster 989]

In theory its problematic because it involved a faction mission which required a specific outcome there are many viable reasons one would consider all options but combat unviable as a solution.

Issues

1. Certain people refuse all help on faction missions they can complete themselves (combat is a solution hence asking for help isnt required).

2. Allowing the diplomatic bard to complete his discussion and then attack them could cause even more issues than just shooting them at the start.

3. You make the assumption that the parties plan is exactly the same as the faction mission (in this case the faction mission is to remove them from the area, the parties plan could be to bypass them)

Its an issue with faction missions that people feel they must complete to be considered on par with everyone else.

[Andrew Christian]

Ok, lets assume Ranger-guy lets the Bard do the talky-talky thing, and now they have a friendly or even helpful NPC. And the Bard (and rest of party) convinces NPC to hang out for awhile and help them out. But this doesn't satisfy Ranger-guy's faction mission.

So after awhile, the party doesn't really NEED the NPC anymore, so Ranger-guy decides to kill him. Now Bard (and rest of party) have a moral issue with Ranger-guy shooting him in essentially cold blood.

There are always two sides to every story.

The real issue, though, wasn't about the faction mission.

The real issue seems to be the players themselves, and how they were interacting with one another.

[Alexander_Damocles]

I would have to side with the rest of the party. They have no way to know he isn't dominated, or out of his mind, etc.

Just because a faction mission tells you to do something, doesn't mean you can or should screw over the rest of the party to do it.

[Andrew Christian]

If its the scenario I think it is, I'm pretty sure that killing the guy won't screw anything over at all.

[Jason S]

Marthian wrote:

Actually, his faction mission was to make them leave "by wit or sword." We also had a bard clearly capable of just diplomacy.

If the faction mission allows the PC to use force to make them leave, it obviously isn't an evil act. You were both using the word 'evil', when clearly there was no foul in either case.

It's good etiquette to allow people to do their thing (Bard), but perhaps he felt that was out of character for his PC. Or maybe he feels the Bard was hogging his spotlight (it was his faction mission after all)? It's hard to tell, we weren't there. I'm sure if you asked him, it would be clear.

[Eric Clingenpeel]

I will point out, that just because its a faction mission doesn't mean it isn't evil. I mean how many missions are about specifically assassinating someone?

[Jason S]

Assasinating and killing have context, especially in war (even if covert). If those acts were always evil, each and every soldier (in real life) is evil. I think we all know that's not true.

This specific action wasn't killing, it was "making them leave" by violence or threat of violence. Big difference. I'd say the average things that average Pathfinders do on a regular basis (take lives) is much worse.

[Matthew Morris]

To add to Eric, don't we have multiple evil factions? (Scarzini, Cheliax, Grand Lodge, Qadria*) Who's to say they aren't giving the order.

*

Spoiler:

Rey and Mayim insisted I add the last two.

[Alexander_Damocles]

Yes, and with certain Scarzini faction missions I would be hard pressed to *not* give PC's a note on their chronicle about sliding towards evil. Just because some creep with a 'stache told you to do it doesn't make it no longer evil.

[Dan Luckett]

But Hitler told me to do it!!!

[Jason S]

Daniel Luckett wrote:

But Hitler told me to do it!!!

That's right, you Lawful rule-abiding types are just drones. :)

Chaotic 1, Lawful 0

[Dan Luckett]

Except a smart lawful person respects only true legitimate rulership that doesn't compromise itself by committing international crimes. His actions invalidated his rule, thus a lawful person's ability to follow him lawfully. :P

[Jason S]

Daniel Luckett wrote:

Except a smart lawful person respects only true legitimate rulership that doesn't compromise itself by committing international crimes. His actions invalidated his rule, thus a lawful person's ability to follow him lawfully. :P

Incorrect, your political leader is legitimate authority no matter what (craziness) he may say. I have several George Bush examples (that make no sense to the rest of the world), so please don't go there. Your point of view is exceptionally altered based on where you live. An American actually started talking politics to me in an international Italian cafe back in 2004 (Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, good topics!), and the bar overheard and jumped in and attacked. I don't think any country was missing. Yeah... good times on my vacation (actually, it wasn't, but it was kind of funny in a way).

Many of my Italian in-laws said that during WW2, Italy didn't want to join with Germany but they had to join the army because that's what their country was doing. That's lawful thinking in real life. Following the status quo. And a lack of independent thinking.

OK, less German talk, more PFS.

[Dan Luckett]

We'll have to agree to disagree since this isn't the place for it, and after all this is an alignment discussion.

[Jiggy]

Jason S wrote:

That's lawful thinking ... a lack of independent thinking.

You can tell someone doesn't understand alignment when they can't produce a non-negative description of one different than their own. ;)

[Dan Luckett]

In my favorite alignment test and explanation I've found. I come out pretty heavily Lawful Good. The test has everyone else I've had take it come out to what they understand to be their alignment and the descriptions and definitions have been very thorough. I don't have the link to it from this computer, but if you find the alignment system at least fascinating it's worth a look.

[Mystic Lemur]

The GM marked your chronicle sheet because he decided that trying to subdue a party member and save the life of a bystander was an evil act. You really can't make this crap up.

In a PbP game I'm in, the NG cleric just cut down a drunk commoner for badmouthing his god. I'm the LE rogue-type who's standing up to him and calling him out on his actions. You want to talk about inter-party alignment conflict... The DM is going to have a cow when he logs in and reads that crap.