Party finishing off enemies - is my divine hunter's only recourse to leave party?


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

So we took prisoners, but the wizard goes around and kills them off.

There is nothing we can do to stop her, correct?

Tia

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Sounds like a roleplaying opportunity.

As for there being nothing you can do...

Guide To Organized Play wrote:

Do Not Bully Other Players

We’re all friends here, and we’re all playing a game together with the single purpose of having a wonderful time. Do not push other players around just because your character can. Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not be tolerated. A little fun banter between PCs can be great roleplaying, but when you find yourself doing everything in your power to make another character look like an idiot or to undo everything that character is trying to accomplish, you’ve probably lost sight of the purpose of Pathfinder Society Organized Play and may be asked to leave the table. Playing your character is not an excuse for childish behavior. GMs should work with their event coordinators to resolve any out-of-game conflicts. If you are both the GM and the coordinator, use your own discretion. Extreme or repetitive cases should be resolved by asking the offender to leave the table.

Sczarni

This can be a very touchy subject. I'll leave the details out of this one, but I had a similar situation at one point that lead to a bit of a blow-up in the gaming group as killing surrendered prisoners was deemed to not be an evil act by the GM (since the prisoners were evil).

Seeing as how this is PFSOP, that could translate into some difficult terrain for your paladin, however I think it could open up a marvelous roleplaying opportunity, depending on the GM and players.

Your paladin could put themself in between the wizard and the prisoners and demand they stop, or you could take non-damaging actions to try to stop them. The other thing is that the character should be made aware that killing surrendered opponents may be considered on the edge of being an evil act if done with no provocation beyond the fact that they're evil.

An Andoran killing slavers might be permissible as not being something evil, but without a good stinkin' explanation, I'd be loathe to let them get away with it as a paladin if that's your schtick. If you're a holy, smite-all-evil-indiscriminately, sort it may be perfectly within your code to be cool with.

Sczarni

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Sounds like a roleplaying opportunity.

As for there being nothing you can do...

Guide To Organized Play wrote:

Do Not Bully Other Players

We’re all friends here, and we’re all playing a game together with the single purpose of having a wonderful time. Do not push other players around just because your character can. Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not be tolerated. A little fun banter between PCs can be great roleplaying, but when you find yourself doing everything in your power to make another character look like an idiot or to undo everything that character is trying to accomplish, you’ve probably lost sight of the purpose of Pathfinder Society Organized Play and may be asked to leave the table. Playing your character is not an excuse for childish behavior. GMs should work with their event coordinators to resolve any out-of-game conflicts. If you are both the GM and the coordinator, use your own discretion. Extreme or repetitive cases should be resolved by asking the offender to leave the table.

Also, if the prisoners they're killing happen to be people's faction missions, that's seriously not cool.

The Exchange 5/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

Really, you just have to accept that you can't stop anyone. I decided my very first character was going to be a total "that's the law" kinda guy, but quickly realized there was absolutely nothing I could do when my party members were being miscreants. It didn't matter what they were doing; breaking religious idols, stealing everything that wasn't nailed down, even coup-de-gras-ing the guy I tied up to take back to the authorities. If a sternly worded warning didn't suffice, there was nothing I could do that wasn't PVP and therefore strictly not allowed.

I don't like this particular way it affects the game but "No PVP" is a big rule (that I generally like) and pretty much means unless the GM stops something, it's gonna happen.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

'No PVP' doesn't mean you can't try non-lethal approaches, unless that's been clarified somewhere on the forums.

Sczarni

TriOmegaZero wrote:
'No PVP' doesn't mean you can't try non-lethal approaches, unless that's been clarified somewhere on the forums.

For example, if someone were doing something like killing the prisoners we'd taken when I needed to talk to one of them, only the GM can decide if my Slumber Hex would be considered PVP. It deals no damage, and if we're not being threatened at the moment it'll do nothing but knock out my teammate long enough for me to do what I need to do.

No PVP means you can't harm your companions intentionally. If they're using that to bully other players saying they can't be retaliated against, they're abusing that rule and need to be talked to about it.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Indeed. I usually find trips and grapples to be fair play, but I can see the VCs thinking otherwise.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Consider bringing it up before play and having an alternate character ready if it sounds like some of the other players aren't interested in being compatible with a heroic character. At least then you will know in advance there is going to be an issue.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/55/55/55/5 Venture-Captain, Indiana—Southern aka CanisDirus

If I was running a table and the group did something like kill bound/surrendered enemies (without clear evidence that said enemies were lying about surrendering and were still scheming to try and kill the PCs or innocents), and there was a Paladin present, I'd have *no* problem with him leaving the group. If that meant the rest of the group couldn't handle the scenario, well, I'd write on their chronicle sheet to remember that all actions have consequences, and doing something that drives a party member to leave the quest is a good way to fail or get killed.

Playing true to your character is, IMHO, important for a "true" roleplaying experience. If players treat NPCs like cardboard cutouts or the game world like a Grand Theft Auto sandbox at my table, they may find out differently (within the rules and bounds of the scenario, of course - but if they want to Gather Information from people who know that the PCs kill people who have surrendered, they may find that other NPCs start off more unfriendly, etc.).

Silver Crusade 4/5 Venture-Captain, New York—Suffolk County aka Brian Cea

This is very Simple. The GM says NO. Pathfinder Society characters cannot be evil. Therefore acting in an evil way such as "finishing them off" should not be allowed. Out of play the GM turns to said player and says "Sorry but I cannot allow you to do that . Your character would not think of doing that. He is a Pathfinder."

Grand Lodge 5/5

Jack-of-Blades wrote:
Also, if the prisoners they're killing happen to be people's faction missions, that's seriously not cool.

While this is true there are also occasions where as odd as it sounds killing someone might be a faction mission. Aren't many of these but they do exist. Beyond that, yeah, this is one of the touchiest subjects in any game and I'm not going to get into that old argument.

Sczarni

Michael Meunier wrote:
Jack-of-Blades wrote:
Also, if the prisoners they're killing happen to be people's faction missions, that's seriously not cool.
While this is true there are also occasions where as odd as it sounds killing someone might be a faction mission. Aren't many of these but they do exist. Beyond that, yeah, this is one of the touchiest subjects in any game and I'm not going to get into that old argument.

Oh, I'm well aware of those missions. I've had my fair share of assassination missions over the years, but killing all the prisoners to cover that you're killing your target is excessive. Also, if you're killing other peoples' faction mission NPC's, say ones they need to talk to or hand a note off to, that means you're forcing other PC's to fail their faction missions just because you feel like being an evil jerk.

Brian Cea wrote:
This is very Simple. The GM says NO. Pathfinder Society characters cannot be evil. Therefore acting in an evil way such as "finishing them off" should not be allowed. Out of play the GM turns to said player and says "Sorry but I cannot allow you to do that . Your character would not think of doing that. He is a Pathfinder."

I disagree. Much though PC's shouldn't be acting evil, a GM doesn't have the right to tell them they aren't allowed to act that way anymore than a GM is allowed to tell the witch in the party they're not allowed to use their Slumber Hex because it's a save or suck ability.

What the GM can do, however, is note on that character's chronicle sheet that they're in danger of shifting toward the permanently unplayable Evil alignment and that if they do it again, their character becomes evil, therefore unplayable.

There are evil pathfinders, they just aren't a playable option in PFSOP.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson aka Sir_Wulf

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Faced with such a situation, build yourself a second character. Make him opposite the paladin in every reasonable way, with notable social flaws. Don't deliberately make him useless, but make him less desirable company than the paladin would be. If needed, use GM credit to get him up to a level where he could travel with the other party members.

When your paladin sees the companions that have been chosen to adventure with him, have him storm out of the room. (Obviously, this has to be cleared with the GM beforehand: You can't switch PCs once the game has started!) Your second PC then comes slouching into the room, mumbling apologies for being late.

Recommended options:
+ Homicidal Int 7 half-orc barbarian ("What? I wasna supposed to kill dat guy?")

+ Health-conscious priest of Irori ("Why do you need endure elements? Years of SOFT LIVING have made you weak!")

+ Snooty Elven Wizard ("Once again, the Venture-Captains demand I travel with morons.")

Grand Lodge

Food for thought - PFS (faction missions aside) only demands you 'defeat' the encounter to gain the loot and xp. Throat slitting is not required... sometimes players need to be told that. It is theoretically possible to do some adventures with no combat at all.

If they say they know but they want to do it anyway? Thats a sure sign they are derailing... otherwise its slim but possible they may not know.

Silver Crusade

As a GM, if someone uses the "No PvP, you can't stop me" reason, I tell them that isn't part of PFS. That is breaking Wheaton's Law, and I don't let players run amok. If they have a reason to off people beyond "because I want to", then sure.

And as a player, I've dropped from LG to LN for killing a fallen foe. If you are neutral, tread lightly with killing helpless creatures who have surrendered, because quite a few GM's will evil you out of the campaign for it.

The Exchange 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Often heard at a table in my area, "Don't kill 'em, they're worth more alive!".

This often causes the Andoran faction players to pause - and sometimes stop swinging with non-lethal damage. Dead prisoners don't make good slaves. Then it get's to be a race to see if the Andorans can kill them before the Osirion/Qadirian/Cheliaxians can subdue them.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

The moment someone quotes "Wheaton's Law" I'm inclined to ignore them.

My suggestion is try to find a way to have fun with the conflict. If the party is a bunch of murderous mercenaries make it a point to not directly support them. Chastise them. Quote the good works of your deity.

The 'Cooperate' of the Pathfinder creed doesn't mean you have to like your team.

I have an inquisitor that refuses to kill people (he only slays monsters). One of the greatest moments I had was when one of the others PCs was dropped and on the brink of death. I had no choice but violate my ethos in order to save him. Getting to hold that over the moral-less cavalier was good times indeed.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Brian Cea wrote:
This is very Simple. The GM says NO. Pathfinder Society characters cannot be evil. Therefore acting in an evil way such as "finishing them off" should not be allowed. Out of play the GM turns to said player and says "Sorry but I cannot allow you to do that . Your character would not think of doing that. He is a Pathfinder."

Finishing them off isn't evil, assuming they attacked the characters first. In many of the civilised countries in Golarion the punishment for attempted murder would be public execution or enslavement. Killing helpless prisoners may be the least worst option. What else are you going to do, let the murderers go? Amputate limbs? Giving them a clean death could be seen as an act of mercy.

And no-one tells me what my character thinks. Being a Pathfinder just means I have loyalty to a Neutral organisation, what is this obsession people have with Pathfinders being the 'good' guys? I'm allowed to play a cleric of Rovagug if I feel like it; how is the GM going to turn to me and say I wouldn't kill someone? I can't be evil so I can't go around randomly killing innocent people, but that guy who just attacked me? He's not innocent, he just lost a fight and I owe him no duty of care. The paladin might disagree, and that's a role-playing opportunity.

Just occasionally the killing of a prisoner might be a diplomatic problem for the Society, and in those circumstances even my Neutral characters would let them live because we were instructed to do so (one mod in particular asks Pathfinders not to kill anyone), but in many other mods killing the enemy is unavoidable and my Good clerics have to suffer in anguish when we do so.

My take on it is:
Killing innocent people - Evil
Killing those who attacked us (helpless or not) - Neutral
Attempting to redeem those who attacked us - Good

5/5 Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West aka Harley Quinn X

Sections were added to the new Guide to help situations like this. Alignment debates are touchy, and I'm not even going to touch the whole alignment thing with a 10-foot pole. To put it short, it's up to the GM to decide and warn said player how their actions might affect them or the others at their table.

Guide to Organized Play, Page 34 wrote:
Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table, but she must warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning must be clear, and the GM must make sure that the player understands the warning and the actions that initiated the warning. The PC should be given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences.

Sure, it can be used as a "roleplay opportunity" but said character may have known what challenges that would create for their paladin. Being a smart wizard, they probably could think of some better way to incapacitate without killing. Also in the guide is:

Guide to Organized Play, Page 21 wrote:
Playing your character is not an excuse for childish behavior.

The person playing the paladin has the right to ask the Wizard to not do so as well, and the Wizard can decide whether or not he still wants to go through with it. If there is a valid reason, then it will play out as normal, I guess.

Silver Crusade

Stormfriend wrote:
Brian Cea wrote:
This is very Simple. The GM says NO. Pathfinder Society characters cannot be evil. Therefore acting in an evil way such as "finishing them off" should not be allowed. Out of play the GM turns to said player and says "Sorry but I cannot allow you to do that . Your character would not think of doing that. He is a Pathfinder."

Finishing them off isn't evil, assuming they attacked the characters first. In many of the civilised countries in Golarion the punishment for attempted murder would be public execution or enslavement. Killing helpless prisoners may be the least worst option. What else are you going to do, let the murderers go? Amputate limbs? Giving them a clean death could be seen as an act of mercy.

And no-one tells me what my character thinks. Being a Pathfinder just means I have loyalty to a Neutral organisation, what is this obsession people have with Pathfinders being the 'good' guys? I'm allowed to play a cleric of Rovagug if I feel like it; how is the GM going to turn to me and say I wouldn't kill someone? I can't be evil so I can't go around randomly killing innocent people, but that guy who just attacked me? He's not innocent, he just lost a fight and I owe him no duty of care. The paladin might disagree, and that's a role-playing opportunity.

Just occasionally the killing of a prisoner might be a diplomatic problem for the Society, and in those circumstances even my Neutral characters would let them live because we were instructed to do so (one mod in particular asks Pathfinders not to kill anyone), but in many other mods killing the enemy is unavoidable and my Good clerics have to suffer in anguish when we do so.

My take on it is:
Killing innocent people - Evil
Killing those who attacked us (helpless or not) - Neutral
Attempting to redeem those who attacked us - Good

Killing the guy who attacked you in combat? Sure, that is fine. Killing them once they surrender, and your party has accepted it? That crosses the line.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Killing the guy who attacked you in combat? Sure, that is fine. Killing them once they surrender, and your party has accepted it? That crosses the line.

So what would you do with them? The authorities will probably execute them or sell them into slavery. If you let them go they'll murder other people. If you take all their stuff they may come after you for revenge, or rob other people to re-equip themselves. How would you go about rehabilitating them? Medieval prisons are not exactly designed to provide inmates with 'life skills' and 'opportunities'. They're more likely to make the prisoner even more violent and desperate than when he went in, assuming he doesn't die in some cage. So what would you do with them?

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Stormfriend wrote:
Medieval prisons are not exactly designed to provide inmates with 'life skills' and 'opportunities'.

Medieval prisons don't matter when we're talking about Golarion.

Silver Crusade

Stormfriend wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Killing the guy who attacked you in combat? Sure, that is fine. Killing them once they surrender, and your party has accepted it? That crosses the line.
So what would you do with them? The authorities will probably execute them or sell them into slavery. If you let them go they'll murder other people. If you take all their stuff they may come after you for revenge, or rob other people to re-equip themselves. How would you go about rehabilitating them? Medieval prisons are not exactly designed to provide inmates with 'life skills' and 'opportunities'. They're more likely to make the prisoner even more violent and desperate than when he went in, assuming he doesn't die in some cage. So what would you do with them?

Send them to the church of Sarenrae for brainw...reeduc...redemption.

Silver Crusade

Stormfriend wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Killing the guy who attacked you in combat? Sure, that is fine. Killing them once they surrender, and your party has accepted it? That crosses the line.
So what would you do with them? The authorities will probably execute them or sell them into slavery. If you let them go they'll murder other people. If you take all their stuff they may come after you for revenge, or rob other people to re-equip themselves. How would you go about rehabilitating them? Medieval prisons are not exactly designed to provide inmates with 'life skills' and 'opportunities'. They're more likely to make the prisoner even more violent and desperate than when he went in, assuming he doesn't die in some cage. So what would you do with them?

Turn them over to the authorities. If you accept their surrender, then turn around and kill them, that is evil. If they die in combat, its on them. If they surrender *and* you accept, then kill em? Evil. If you don't accept their surrender, that is more of a neutral thing to do.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

I'd also point out that some faction missions require you attempt to save foes. So killing the unconscious is just as much PVP as trying to keep Dudley Do-Right from saving them.

Grand Lodge

Stormfriend wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Killing the guy who attacked you in combat? Sure, that is fine. Killing them once they surrender, and your party has accepted it? That crosses the line.
So what would you do with them? The authorities will probably execute them or sell them into slavery. If you let them go they'll murder other people. If you take all their stuff they may come after you for revenge, or rob other people to re-equip themselves. How would you go about rehabilitating them? Medieval prisons are not exactly designed to provide inmates with 'life skills' and 'opportunities'. They're more likely to make the prisoner even more violent and desperate than when he went in, assuming he doesn't die in some cage. So what would you do with them?

Yes but thats the law and at least they have the chance of their day in court or that one day they'll get out of jail or slavery.

You aren't the one killing them in that case. And their odds are better than if you just slit their throats.

Finally? Deadmen tell few tales but the living can be downright co-operative.

Lantern Lodge

Helaman wrote:
Finally? Deadmen tell few tales but the living can be downright co-operative.

While I don't approve of killing prisoners (regardless of alignment) I couldn't help but chuckle when I read this and instantly want to remind everyone that there IS Speak With Dead.

Edit: Nevermind. "...few tales..." Misread initially. Still funny though.

Grand Lodge

I was mindful of that when I said 'few'... that said, the spell requires a high level cleric who is willing to cast it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Turn them over to the authorities.

Who then kill them instead of you? If you knowingly hand them over to be executed, how is that any different from killing them yourself? You're still complicit in the execution.

Handing them over to the authorities may be lawful, but it's not good.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jack-of-Blades wrote:
killing surrendered prisoners was deemed to not be an evil act by the GM (since the prisoners were evil).

Lame.

Evil for the sake of evil robs morality of any depth. If alignment is simply delineating two sides for the sake of combat, there's no difference betwen good and evil since the good characters are the same as evil characters (killing them once they've surrendered). I believe this is an example of a GM who is doing his campaign a disservice.

ALSO, very few characters operate entirely within a single alignment. Hans Solo, arguably a chaotic good character, shoots and kills Greedo, despite owing Jabba money. He doesn't make a habit out of doing this, and it is arguably an evil act (certainly chaotic) but he remains good.

As for a Paladin walking away from the party, the DM might as well end the game anyways. The party is not acting cohesively. This conflict offers an opportunity for players to role play and come to a mutually agreeable solution, but if they're unwilling to compromise the only option is to go their separate ways.

Shadow Lodge

Dhjika wrote:

So we took prisoners, but the wizard goes around and kills them off.

There is nothing we can do to stop her, correct?

Tia

You (the player) can stop playing with the player of the wizard. This seems to be the easiest solution, after reading the rest of the thread.


Pathfinders are not the law. Handing over someone who has broken the law does not make you complicit if they are executed due to their law-breaking and certainly doesn't permit a Pathfinder to slit their throats.

At my table, offhandedly executing a bound prisoner would certainly put you in danger of an alignment shift depending on how your behaviour has been regarding your alignment throughout the rest of the game.

Grand Lodge

Stormfriend wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Turn them over to the authorities.

Who then kill them instead of you? If you knowingly hand them over to be executed, how is that any different from killing them yourself? You're still complicit in the execution.

Handing them over to the authorities may be lawful, but it's not good.

The difference is that you slice their throats? They are guaranteed dead.

You hand them over to the authorities? a) they have a chance at a non capital sentence and even if they get a capital sentence, they at least had more of a chance than with you and your straight razor.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Pick up two of the surrendering guys: one in each hand. They're now objects under your control and attacking them is violating the no PVP rule.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Pick up two of the surrendering guys: one in each hand. They're now objects under your control and attacking them is violating the no PVP rule.

I'm sorry, but even if that were true mechanically (which it isn't), it would still be a really lame way to handle the situation. Even a helpless person does not become an object just because you pick him up.

A better way to handle it would be to turn the rules around against him. Stand in front of the one he wants to kill, and say he can't have him because he'd have to kill you first. It's the cliche good thing to do, so he can't say you aren't acting in character, and he can't do anything because of the No PvP rule. Point out that he's the one initiating conflict, and he's the one that needs to chill.

But I still say exercise your right as a player to vote with your feet. No one is forcing you to play together.

Scarab Sages

Quote:

I'm sorry, but even if that were true mechanically (which it isn't), it would still be a really lame way to handle the situation. Even a helpless person does not become an object just because you pick him up.

A better way to handle it would be to turn the rules around against him. Stand in front of the one he wants to kill, and say he can't have him because he'd have to kill you first. It's the cliche good thing to do, so he can't say you aren't acting in character, and he can't do anything because of the No PvP rule. Point out that he's the one initiating conflict, and he's the one that needs to chill.

But I still say exercise your right as a player to vote with your feet. No one is forcing you to play together.

Couldn't the offending character just step around you and kill the target?

Shadow Lodge

Muja wrote:
Couldn't the offending character just step around you and kill the target?

Well, yeah. It's meant as a delay tactic so you can try to resolve it OOC. It's meant to shift the perception so that it isn't the defender being accused of "PvP".

5/5 5/55/5

Helaman wrote:
If they say they know but they want to do it anyway? Thats a sure sign they are derailing... otherwise its slim but possible they may not know.

Which is why the first time around I'd ask for a time out and give them a run down of my 'problem', after that they are derailing, which means a second time out and me asking them point blank why they are being ****heads.

Real life solutions to in game problems, totally legit.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Mystic Lemur wrote:


I'm sorry, but even if that were true mechanically (which it isn't)

It is. The NPC is no different than a held weapon, chest, or piece of treasure and as such can't be attacked without violating the no PVP rule.

Quote:
it would still be a really lame way to handle the situation. Even a helpless person does not become an object just because you pick him up.

If you're going to rag on my answer that badly you should propose a better one. Yours does nothing since the wizard can simply 5 foot step to your left and coup de grace

Quote:
But I still say exercise your right as a player to vote with your feet. No one is forcing you to play together.

You're assuming a larger player pool than the poster may have available.

5/5 5/55/55/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Stormfriend wrote:
Medieval prisons are not exactly designed to provide inmates with 'life skills' and 'opportunities'.
Medieval prisons don't matter when we're talking about Golarion.

The description of the gray whale prison-ship in Absalom makes it sound like there's not much difference between the two.

With that said though, there's room in both the chaotic good and lawful good alignments for people that think that some people would be much improved by the loss of a head. The only difference is that the lawful good folks want to see it done by a duly appointed magistrate following the legal system and the chaotic good folks feel that since they're the ones who're on the ground SEEING whats going on that they're a better judge of what needs to be done than someone miles away hearing about it second hand.

The Exchange

It's not that Lawful Good folks have a problem with swift justice to evildoers on the field of combat, actually. The problem crops up when you allow the "bad guys" to surrender, tie them up so they're bound and helpless on the floor, and then kill them anyway. In my paladin's book, the first is fine; the second is really unacceptable. If you're going to accept surrender on the part of your foes, you take them back to the proper authorities. If you don't want to bother with that---don't accept their surrender.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mystic Lemur wrote:
I'm sorry, but even if that were true mechanically (which it isn't)
It is. The NPC is no different than a held weapon, chest, or piece of treasure and as such can't be attacked without violating the no PVP rule.
Quote:
it would still be a really lame way to handle the situation. Even a helpless person does not become an object just because you pick him up.
If you're going to rag on my answer that badly you should propose a better one. Yours does nothing since the wizard can simply 5 foot step to your left and coup de grace

I stand by my statement. Unless you can show me where in the rules a living (or dying, but not already dead) person is treated as an object when held, it just isn't true. Secondly, if you can show me where in the rules that is the case, I will continue to say it is a lame way to exploit the rules. No personal affront intended. And besides, I can work around your way, too. If the person is treated like an object, someone could just sunder him. If the wizard takes a 5 ft. step and coup de graces, I'll use my attack of opportunity to disarm him. Disarm can't possibly hurt the player, unless he's using an unarmed strike. :P

I proposed a delay tactic, and an OOC tactic of pointing out that the aggressor was the one really engaging in PvP. If you have a mechanically sound better idea, I'd love to hear it.

Silver Crusade

Mystic Lemur wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mystic Lemur wrote:
I'm sorry, but even if that were true mechanically (which it isn't)
It is. The NPC is no different than a held weapon, chest, or piece of treasure and as such can't be attacked without violating the no PVP rule.
Quote:
it would still be a really lame way to handle the situation. Even a helpless person does not become an object just because you pick him up.
If you're going to rag on my answer that badly you should propose a better one. Yours does nothing since the wizard can simply 5 foot step to your left and coup de grace

I stand by my statement. Unless you can show me where in the rules a living (or dying, but not already dead) person is treated as an object when held, it just isn't true. Secondly, if you can show me where in the rules that is the case, I will continue to say it is a lame way to exploit the rules. No personal affront intended. And besides, I can work around your way, too. If the person is treated like an object, someone could just sunder him. :P

I proposed a delay tactic, and an OOC tactic of pointing out that the aggressor was the one really engaging in PvP. If you have a mechanically sound better idea, I'd love to hear it.

Throw yourself on top of the NPC. If the wizard wants to CDG them, they'll literately have to go through you. If he gets clever, ready a move action to break LOS if he attempts to CDG a fallen target.

Out of character, if he continues to do that and refuses to consider what other players want, the GM should pull the player aside and tell them to start learning to work with others. If it persists...the player can leave the table.

Grand Lodge

The way this thread is going makes it sound like PFS GMs need to toughen up when it comes to warning players about alignment infractions.

Even if you're writing a note about a borderline evil action on a chronicle sheet, it lets the players know that they can't get used to playing Jack Bauer in PFS.

3/5

I can think of plenty of legitimate role-playing reasons that a non-evil, or even good character would kill enemies.

If my cleric of Iomedae captured an evil outsider, or a Tiefling (he doesn't have ranks in knowledge(planes) so he can't tell the difference). Other particularly monstrous enemies, like alchemists with extra arms and He would probably try to kill them. If a paladin intervened, it would be a good role-playing opportunity but it would leave a bad taste in my mouth as a player.

Grand Lodge

When I think about all the great opportunities for roleplay in Pathfinder, I immediately think about arguing with the party about slitting the throat of a helpless and or surrendered opponent. That's the stuff that keeps me coming back to the gaming table. Good times, good times.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is exactly why I will not play a paladin in PFS. My PC's adherence to her code would cause such conflicts practically every game, and it's not my idea of a good time.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Alexander_Damocles wrote:


Throw yourself on top of the NPC. If the wizard wants to CDG them, they'll literately have to go through you. If he gets clever, ready a move action to break LOS if he attempts to CDG a fallen target.

Out of character, if he continues to do that and refuses to consider what other players want, the GM should pull the player aside and tell them to start learning to work with others. If it persists...the player can leave the table.

At pretty much every table I've played at it's the character trying to stop the execution that is refusing to work with the others. So if you're happy with the paladin being taken to one side and given a talking to, or else being told to leave the table, then that would be fine.

Faction missions are different, and we all understand there may be personal interests involved, so we'd keep someone alive at the specific request of a character, but those are exceptions.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
KestlerGunner wrote:

The way this thread is going makes it sound like PFS GMs need to toughen up when it comes to warning players about alignment infractions.

Even if you're writing a note about a borderline evil action on a chronicle sheet, it lets the players know that they can't get used to playing Jack Bauer in PFS.

The problem is many GMs don't see this as evil at all, not even slightly. Making notes like that may give the next GM a chuckle, but the random application of alignment infractions will just hurt the game. This needs to be FAQd for the Society.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Party finishing off enemies - is my divine hunter's only recourse to leave party? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.