|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had some of the most odd actions come from players recently, I warn the players that what they are proposing isn't a "good" action and get looks of confusion from across the table.
Now we all know the player doesn't have an alignment, or a clearly defined moral code for that matter, but trying to kill a subdued, unarmed, bound person is not "good"; no matter how you spin it.
Characters have an alignment listed on the sheet, and I'm even willing to give some leeway in situations. (The CG dwarf who wants to kill the tied up goblins. OK, chaotic nature and dwarven racism toward goblins.. sure kill em, but you'll feel bad later.)
Asking a beaten, shackled, mistreated person "What will you give me for freeing you?", is not a "neutral" thing to do. (How someone defines neutral is a discussion in and of itself)
Playing an evil character in Society isn't allowed, but having an occasional character who walks the line is fun. An entire table of self-centered, thieving, blackmailing, murdering thugs week after week gets ridiculous.
I have a character who follows the law and this has gotten me called a paladin multiple times, and that makes me laugh (but I would rather cry). Every character around my tables seem to be lightly medicated psychopaths desperately in need of some therapy and a nice fluffy teddy bear.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this hobby tends to attract "those type of people".
My experience is pretty much the same as yours. I think the best thing you can ask for in these scenarios is a GM who recognizes that evil actions have consequences.
I haven't got Ultimate Campaign yet but apparently that book has more guidance on alignments heading towards Evil through player actions. Hopefully we can see some of those rules adopted in the next Organised Play document.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People have trouble sticking with a concept. Alignment would be useful if it came with a clearly defined metric, but it doesn't. People like to argue and that's all alignment is good for: starting arguments. It would be nice if characters could voluntarily follow an ethos without the GM constantly asking "What's your class & alignment again?". The bottom line is that the alignment system as it exists is not fun, so it is largely ignored. As a GM I don't sweat it, it's not worth the stress. If the players want to act like they are in an amoral video game and they're having fun, I let them go nuts. In my area, no one cries over dead goblin babies. As long as one person's sense of fun doesn't hijack the game, I don't spend time splitting hairs. Some GMs like to argue with players, but it's not my bag.
In the past I have come down on two classes for ethos violations, but in hundreds of tables it was a rare exception to the rule.
|
People have trouble sticking with a concept. Alignment would be useful if it came with a clearly defined metric, but it doesn't. People like to argue and that's all alignment is good for: starting arguments. It would be nice if characters could voluntarily follow an ethos without the GM constantly asking "What's your class & alignment again?". The bottom line is that the alignment system as it exists is not fun, so it is largely ignored. As a GM I don't sweat it, it's not worth the stress. If the players want to act like they are in an amoral video game and they're having fun, I let them go nuts. In my area, no one cries over dead goblin babies. As long as one person's sense of fun doesn't hijack the game, I don't spend time splitting hairs. Some GMs like to argue with players, but it's not my bag.
In the past I have come down on two classes for ethos violations, but in hundreds of tables it was a rare exception to the rule.
Emphasis mine. Pathfinder is not a game of touchy-feely exploration of an individual's morals and descent from decency to depravity as World of Darkness can be. People who enjoy that will gravitate toward more psych-horror games than a descendant of D&D. Certain classes can be an exception (paladin!), but on the whole, that's not a focus feature of the system.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now we all know the player doesn't have an alignment, or a clearly defined moral code for that matter, but trying to kill a subdued, unarmed, bound person is not "good"; no matter how you spin it.
What other options are there?
Hand them over to the authorities, who will kill them for you? That makes you complicit.
Hand them over to the authorities, who will sell them into slavery? That makes you complicit.
Hand them over to the authorities, who will imprison them in a flea encrusted dungeon until their will is broken and they starve to death? Is that better than a clean execution?
Let them go, so they can go and murder other people? That makes you either complicit or negligent.
Force them to convert to a nice god like Sarenrae? That breaches their human rights and freedom of religion.
Hand them over to the authorities who will imprison them in a decent building, look after them, and present them with an opportunity to change their ways? Not going to happen in Golarion!
Sometimes executing prisoners is the only reasonable course of action. It happens in almost every game I've played or run, regardless of character alignment, and no-one bats an eyelid. This is a brutal medieval world, not the modern USA. The looks of confusion come from the fact that most GMs are perfectly happy with it and they're surprised you're not.
|
The fact that you know the authorities are somewhat corrupt doesn't mean that the characters do. Sure, in some countries of Golarion, it probably common knowledge, for example a good character would have a hard time in Nidal. But in the "better" countries you cannot automatically assume that handing criminals over to authorities is worse than killing them outright. A lawful character especially is supposed to do that. If the authorities kill them because of their crimes, well, that is law in action, they got punished for what they did. You cannot take the law in your own hands every time just because you think it might be a more merciful death, not in every country. Especially if you have any knowledge of religion and planes and you know what's waiting for the dead bad guys afterwards.
I'm talking about non-monstrous humanoids here mostly, and assuming you're not in the middle of nowhere, where it would be mightly difficult to get the villains to authorities.
The fact that you know the authorities are somewhat corrupt doesn't mean that the characters do. Sure, in some countries of Golarion, it probably common knowledge, for example a good character would have a hard time in Nidal. But in the "better" countries you cannot automatically assume that handing criminals over to authorities is worse than killing them outright. A lawful character especially is supposed to do that. If the authorities kill them because of their crimes, well, that is law in action, they got punished for what they did. You cannot take the law in your own hands every time just because you think it might be a more merciful death, not in every country. Especially if you have any knowledge of religion and planes and you know what's waiting for the dead bad guys afterwards.
I'm talking about non-monstrous humanoids here mostly, and assuming you're not in the middle of nowhere, where it would be mightly difficult to get the villains to authorities.
We're not debating what's lawful, but what's good. They're completely different things. In many ways being lawful is easier, which is probably why there are so many lawful stupid paladins out there.
So here's a question: if you capture an evil cultist and the options are: hand him over to the authorities who will torture and kill him, and then his soul will go somewhere really nasty; execute him cleanly but his soul will go somewhere really nasty; or let him go so he can kill other people, what do you do?
|
Have you ever read the early Arthurian stories? I figure that you need to put the good alignment more in line with the knightly stories (excluding the Lancelot/Guinevere thing - don't get me started) than law & order.
What did the knights do when they came across an evil knight? They took them down - killing them. The populace cheered and the king congratulated them. Roll credits.
Arthur chopped the very black witch in half. Roll credits.
No knocking unconcious and taking them to court followed by a trial in 2 years.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite paladin is Glory from JourneyQuest. He's too brave to spare the lives of baby orcs.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Emphasis mine. Pathfinder is not a game of touchy-feely exploration of an individual's morals and descent from decency to depravity as World of Darkness can be. People who enjoy that will gravitate toward more psych-horror games than a descendant of D&D. Certain classes can be an exception (paladin!), but on the whole, that's not a focus feature of the system.People have trouble sticking with a concept. Alignment would be useful if it came with a clearly defined metric, but it doesn't. People like to argue and that's all alignment is good for: starting arguments. It would be nice if characters could voluntarily follow an ethos without the GM constantly asking "What's your class & alignment again?". The bottom line is that the alignment system as it exists is not fun, so it is largely ignored. As a GM I don't sweat it, it's not worth the stress. If the players want to act like they are in an amoral video game and they're having fun, I let them go nuts. In my area, no one cries over dead goblin babies. As long as one person's sense of fun doesn't hijack the game, I don't spend time splitting hairs. Some GMs like to argue with players, but it's not my bag.
In the past I have come down on two classes for ethos violations, but in hundreds of tables it was a rare exception to the rule.
Why do you feel it's not a focus of the system? Just because it's a statistic listed for every single character and NPC in the game?
I don't expect Pathfinder to be a game of deep moral dilemmas and soul searching, but having players kill, steal and abuse any being mentioned in a scenario is stupid.
With no penalties for their actions, either moral or physical, players likely will devolve into the internet. Players will have an infinite "audience" of NPC's to abuse, with no consequences.
|
|
Emphasis mine. Pathfinder is not a game of touchy-feely exploration of an individual's morals and descent from decency to depravity as World of Darkness can be. People who enjoy that will gravitate toward more psych-horror games than a descendant of D&D. Certain classes can be an exception (paladin!), but on the whole, that's not a focus feature of the system.People have trouble sticking with a concept. Alignment would be useful if it came with a clearly defined metric, but it doesn't. People like to argue and that's all alignment is good for: starting arguments. It would be nice if characters could voluntarily follow an ethos without the GM constantly asking "What's your class & alignment again?". The bottom line is that the alignment system as it exists is not fun, so it is largely ignored. As a GM I don't sweat it, it's not worth the stress. If the players want to act like they are in an amoral video game and they're having fun, I let them go nuts. In my area, no one cries over dead goblin babies. As long as one person's sense of fun doesn't hijack the game, I don't spend time splitting hairs. Some GMs like to argue with players, but it's not my bag.
In the past I have come down on two classes for ethos violations, but in hundreds of tables it was a rare exception to the rule.
Why do you feel it's not a focus of the system? Just because it's a statistic listed for every single character and NPC in the game?
I don't expect Pathfinder to be a game of deep moral dilemmas and soul searching, but having players kill, steal and abuse any being mentioned in a scenario is stupid.
With no penalties for their actions, either moral or physical, players likely will devolve into the internet. Players will have an infinite "audience" of NPC's to abuse, with no consequences.
Isn't that kinda the problem the OP's got? People not recognizing consequences for breaking out of their (already incredibly nebulous) alignments?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What did the knights do when they came across an evil knight? They took them down - killing them. The populace cheered and the king congratulated them. Roll credits.
If you're talking Gawain in the Vulgate Cycle (one of the most-used long sources of early Arthurian legend, though the author seemed to have a hate-fest going for Gawain), half the time he did this, he figured out that he had just killed a close friend who had been in a suit of armor he didn't recognize, rather than an evil knight. The populace didn't cheer, and generally he was pretty bummed, though apparently not bummed enough to stop him from being reckless enough to do it again and again.
Actually, that does sound like certain PFS characters in demeanor. I approve of the comparison.
|
|
Keep in mind the knights either were the law or were appointed by the king- so going out and killing the bad guys was legal, as well as combining the arrest, trial, and execution into one convenient little package.
And Gawain was even the king's nephew, but that didn't make killing his buddies by mistake a good idea. It did mean he was never legally punished for it, though.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind the knights either were the law or were appointed by the king- so going out and killing the bad guys was legal, as well as combining the arrest, trial, and execution into one convenient little package.
Which is relevant to the Law/Chaos axis, but not to the Good/Evil axis.
Bringing about the death of a dangerous and unrepentant evildoer, with the motivation of preventing further evil/protecting others, is good. Bringing about the death of an innocent, or the death of just about anyone if motivated by a desire to see them suffer/die, is evil.
Doing *either* of the above yourself when you don't have the authority to do so is chaotic. Doing either of the above by handing them over to the authorities is lawful.
|
Well, I'll give an example of something I have experienced. There's a scenario where you wind up in combat with extremely weak things. They are somewhat restrained, but they still make attacks against you once you're in range. Furthermore, you can't actually avoid going in range. More importantly, you're also in combat with individuals that're an actual threat during your first encounter with these less-than-threatening individuals. Now evidently it's considered an alignment infraction to kill these despite that they're the ones attacking you when you get in range. How exactly is killing them to avoid further injury an act of evil? They ARE attacking you, and they DO have the ability to deal damage.
|
Alignment typically means restricting player choice, and with some people that just doesn't fly.
In PFS, however, particularly with the 'no evil' restrictions, it's pretty close to 'non-optional'.
That said, I would advise you try the 'fairness' angle. Other parties who recieved credit for playing this scenario did so without being evil. It shouldn't be fair to receive credit for not doing likewise.
Might not work, but it's worth a shot.
Subjective morality is fun.
So, what were they doing that was evil? Executing people they would've killed anyway, and extorting a prisoner? Anything further? Were they insulting their widows or doing something with far reaching consequences?
@Mcbobbo Holding people to other peoples standards is not always the best thing to do. Your asking to create an expectation, and where people create that could be a little insane. Some people would ask for perfect morality in their vision, which is bad mojo.
|
Now we all know the player doesn't have an alignment, or a clearly defined moral code for that matter, but trying to kill a subdued, unarmed, bound person is not "good"; no matter how you spin it.
Yes, it can be good if the person you have bound and helpless actually deserves execution. Some truly horrible people (ie, the villains) commit acts of such despicable depravity that they do not deserve to live. Speeding their trip to the afterlife and its just rewards and ensuring that they will never harm another living thing again is a valid way of doing good. Its only a problem for lawful good in areas where the act would be unlawful for them (or would be against the regulations of whatever code they're following: paladins are stuck with both)
|
|
Now we all know the player doesn't have an alignment, or a clearly defined moral code for that matter, but trying to kill a subdued, unarmed, bound person is not "good"; no matter how you spin it.Yes, it can be good if the person you have bound and helpless actually deserves execution. Some truly horrible people (ie, the villains) commit acts of such despicable depravity that they do not deserve to live. Speeding their trip to the afterlife and its just rewards and ensuring that they will never harm another living thing again is a valid way of doing good. Its only a problem for lawful good in areas where the act would be unlawful for them (or would be against the regulations of whatever code they're following: paladins are stuck with both)
Well, the "villains" you find in a scenario depend on the scenario. Sometimes they are LN guards who were in the Pathfinders' way but otherwise not evil at all. Is it OK to execute them? What about a planar bound angel forced to block the PC's entrance? It's not coming back in the celestial realms if you kill it here. Some Pathfinders would gloat about having the chance to kill an angel, or execute LN guards.
In the most recent scenario I played, my Cheliax monk, the party Lantern Lodge paladin, and the Silver Crusade inquisitor of Sarenrae walked out in disgust when the (also Silver Crusade!) cleric of Erastil murdered a friendly Chaotic Neutral (the inquisitor and paladin used their abilities and determined he wasn't evil) NPC who hadn't even attacked us (the NPC started by talking to us until the cleric attacked) in cold blood because the NPC was an orc, even though the orc had been nothing but helpful to us and helped the paladin complete her faction mission without demanding anything in return. In a home game, I would have tried to put a stop to it, but it's not really feasible in PFS.
|
|
Now we all know the player doesn't have an alignment, or a clearly defined moral code for that matter, but trying to kill a subdued, unarmed, bound person is not "good"; no matter how you spin it.Yes, it can be good if the person you have bound and helpless actually deserves execution. Some truly horrible people (ie, the villains) commit acts of such despicable depravity that they do not deserve to live. Speeding their trip to the afterlife and its just rewards and ensuring that they will never harm another living thing again is a valid way of doing good. Its only a problem for lawful good in areas where the act would be unlawful for them (or would be against the regulations of whatever code they're following: paladins are stuck with both)Well, the "villains" you find in a scenario depend on the scenario. Sometimes they are LN guards who were in the Pathfinders' way but otherwise not evil at all. Is it OK to execute them? What about a planar bound angel forced to block the PC's entrance? It's not coming back in the celestial realms if you kill it here. Some Pathfinders would gloat about having the chance to kill an angel, or execute LN guards.
In the most recent scenario I played, my Cheliax monk, the party Lantern Lodge paladin, and the Silver Crusade inquisitor of Sarenrae walked out in disgust when the (also Silver Crusade!) cleric of Erastil murdered a friendly Chaotic Neutral (the inquisitor and paladin used their abilities and determined he wasn't evil) NPC who hadn't even attacked us (the NPC started by talking to us until the cleric attacked) in cold blood because the NPC was an orc, even though the orc had been nothing but helpful to us and helped the paladin complete her faction mission without demanding anything in return. In a home game, I would have tried to put a stop to it, but it's not really feasible in PFS.
Was the cleric of a species known to harbor intense hatred of orcs? The fact is, being raised to utterly despise X thing will, in the majority of people, cause them to despise X thing. Dwarves for example have such an intense hatred for their racial foes that it wouldn't surprise me if a lawful good one could be easily tempted into cold blooded murder.
|
|
Was the cleric of a species known to harbor intense hatred of orcs? The...Now we all know the player doesn't have an alignment, or a clearly defined moral code for that matter, but trying to kill a subdued, unarmed, bound person is not "good"; no matter how you spin it.Yes, it can be good if the person you have bound and helpless actually deserves execution. Some truly horrible people (ie, the villains) commit acts of such despicable depravity that they do not deserve to live. Speeding their trip to the afterlife and its just rewards and ensuring that they will never harm another living thing again is a valid way of doing good. Its only a problem for lawful good in areas where the act would be unlawful for them (or would be against the regulations of whatever code they're following: paladins are stuck with both)Well, the "villains" you find in a scenario depend on the scenario. Sometimes they are LN guards who were in the Pathfinders' way but otherwise not evil at all. Is it OK to execute them? What about a planar bound angel forced to block the PC's entrance? It's not coming back in the celestial realms if you kill it here. Some Pathfinders would gloat about having the chance to kill an angel, or execute LN guards.
In the most recent scenario I played, my Cheliax monk, the party Lantern Lodge paladin, and the Silver Crusade inquisitor of Sarenrae walked out in disgust when the (also Silver Crusade!) cleric of Erastil murdered a friendly Chaotic Neutral (the inquisitor and paladin used their abilities and determined he wasn't evil) NPC who hadn't even attacked us (the NPC started by talking to us until the cleric attacked) in cold blood because the NPC was an orc, even though the orc had been nothing but helpful to us and helped the paladin complete her faction mission without demanding anything in return. In a home game, I would have tried to put a stop to it, but it's not really feasible in PFS.
Nope, Human.
Was the cleric of a species known to harbor intense hatred of orcs? The fact is, being raised to utterly despise X thing will, in the majority of people, cause them to despise X thing. Dwarves for example have such an intense hatred for their racial foes that it wouldn't surprise me if a lawful good one could be easily tempted into cold blooded murder.
If I can throw out my opinion, it sounded like the player had been disruptive by killing someone in cold blood. Regardless of race or alignment, being disruptive or killing the fun for others is when it becomes trouble.
|
|
Well, the "villains" you find in a scenario depend on the scenario. Sometimes they are LN guards who were in the Pathfinders' way but otherwise not evil at all. Is it OK to execute them? What about a planar bound angel forced to block the PC's entrance? It's not coming back in the celestial realms if you kill it here. Some Pathfinders would gloat about having the chance to kill an angel, or execute LN guards.
Then they're evil. I was only objecting to the idea that good people never kill helpless people- sometimes there are very good and just reasons.
|
|
Now we all know the player doesn't have an alignment, or a clearly defined moral code for that matter, but trying to kill a subdued, unarmed, bound person is not "good"; no matter how you spin it.Yes, it can be good if the person you have bound and helpless actually deserves execution. Some truly horrible people (ie, the villains) commit acts of such despicable depravity that they do not deserve to live. Speeding their trip to the afterlife and its just rewards and ensuring that they will never harm another living thing again is a valid way of doing good. Its only a problem for lawful good in areas where the act would be unlawful for them (or would be against the regulations of whatever code they're following: paladins are stuck with both)
And again, I'll stick up for paladins. This seems to be a recurring theme for me here on the forums. Ironic, given that I've only actually played a paladin character in one session (that would be the down side of having 13 PFS characters).
Executing prisoners who are clearly evil and deserve execution is allowable by most paladin codes. There's nothing in any paladin code that says "Don't act as judge, jury, and executioner against clearly evil foes." In fact, there's one paladin code in Faiths of Purity (Torag, I think) that forbids the taking of prisoners, so the paladin is actually REQUIRED to kill their foes. Yes, if they're in a city, then they're more likely to turn the prisoner over to the proper authorities to deal with. But many nations respect the moral authority of paladins enough to give them the authority to take care of such matters themselves. And out in the wilderness or something, that's often not an option.
But yes, they (and all PCs, really) should be sure that the foes in question really are clearly, irredeemably evil before doing so. This includes most BBEGs, but definitely doesn't include Rogue Eidolon's example.
And if I were a player at a table where something like what RE described were to happen, my good, and even some of my neutral, PCs would have taken some sort of non-lethal PvP action to prevent it, which probably would have forced the GM to step in and adjudicate the situation. As a GM, I'd allow the good PCs to step in to prevent a cold blooded murder. If the player insisted on going through with such a clearly evil act, then I'd give them one final warning before declaring that their character was now unplayable under PFS rules, converting them to an NPC, and allowing the other PCs to kill/subdue them.
|
|
And if I were a player at a table where something like what RE described were to happen, my good, and even some of my neutral, PCs would have taken some sort of non-lethal PvP action to prevent it, which probably would have forced the GM to step in and adjudicate the situation. As a GM, I'd allow the good PCs to step in to prevent a cold blooded murder. If the player insisted on going through with such a clearly evil act, then I'd give them one final warning before declaring that their character was now unplayable under PFS rules, converting them to an NPC, and allowing the other PCs to kill/subdue them.
Since PvP, even nonlethal PvP, isn't allowed, we did what we could; we left in disgust and made it clear we wouldn't be helping if it turned out to be a close fight and not a salughter (we had no idea what the orc could do if provoked since it was 10-11 subtier and all the 10s and 11s had just left the level 7 cleric and magus alone, but it turned out the NPC, meant to be a friendly RP encounter, was still easily killed). Meanwhile the second paladin and the samurai couldn't process what was going on and stared, stunned as the whole thing unfolded. The elven magus, who despised orcs, supported the Erastil cleric in killing the peaceful orc. The cleric was also attacking for lethal and giving his companion a kill order against other orcs who were clearly attacking us mistakenly (they thought we killed their leader and were in league with undead, while we were there to help against the undead), even though everyone else was trying to do nonlethal and the paladin needed info for her faction mission still at that time (to alleviate the faction mission part, the GM just flat-out stated that those particular orcs' deaths wouldn't prevent her mission).
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
One of the big reasons a lot of people play RPGs is catharsis. They get to do thIngs in the game they would never dream of doing in real life. It helps them expunge their negative emotions. So really, it shouldn't be any surprise that it may sometimes feel like you are sitting at a table full of sociopaths. But that doesn't mean you really are.
|
|
There's nothing in any paladin code that says "Don't act as judge, jury, and executioner against clearly evil foes."
In the middle of nowhere that works. In town I'm pretty sure there are laws against anyone but the local/national authorities killing someone and a paladin is obligated to respect that.
But many nations respect the moral authority of paladins enough to give them the authority to take care of such matters themselves
Citation? Politicians/nobles are the last people that would want to give hack happy paladins the ability to behead anything that dings on their detect evil...
|
|
And if I were a player at a table where something like what RE described were to happen, my good, and even some of my neutral, PCs would have taken some sort of non-lethal PvP action to prevent it, which probably would have forced the GM to step in and adjudicate the situation. As a GM, I'd allow the good PCs to step in to prevent a cold blooded murder. If the player insisted on going through with such a clearly evil act, then I'd give them one final warning before declaring that their character was now unplayable under PFS rules, converting them to an NPC, and allowing the other PCs to kill/subdue them.Since PvP, even nonlethal PvP, isn't allowed, we did what we could; we left in disgust and made it clear we wouldn't be helping if it turned out to be a close fight and not a salughter (we had no idea what the orc could do if provoked since it was 10-11 subtier and all the 10s and 11s had just left the level 7 cleric and magus alone, but it turned out the NPC, meant to be a friendly RP encounter, was still easily killed). Meanwhile the second paladin and the samurai couldn't process what was going on and stared, stunned as the whole thing unfolded. The elven magus, who despised orcs, supported the Erastil cleric in killing the peaceful orc. The cleric was also attacking for lethal and giving his companion a kill order against other orcs who were clearly attacking us mistakenly (they thought we killed their leader and were in league with undead, while we were there to help against the undead), even though everyone else was trying to do nonlethal and the paladin needed info for her faction mission still at that time (to alleviate the faction mission part, the GM just flat-out stated that those particular orcs' deaths wouldn't prevent her mission).
I'm not 100% clear on the definition of PvP in these circumstances. If my Flowing Monk bodyguard had been there, and had redirected the cleric's attacks onto herself, or used her interrupts to reposition the cleric and foil the attack, would those actions have been allowable under PFS rules?
|
|
I'm not 100% clear on the definition of PvP in these circumstances. If my Flowing Monk bodyguard had been there, and had redirected the cleric's attacks onto herself, or used her interrupts to reposition the cleric and foil the attack, would those actions have been allowable under PFS rules?
Expect table variation.
I'm not 100% clear on the definition of PvP in these circumstances. If my Flowing Monk bodyguard had been there, and had redirected the cleric's attacks onto herself, or used her interrupts to reposition the cleric and foil the attack, would those actions have been allowable under PFS rules?Expect table variation.
I once played at a table where going against another character's will defined PvP.
You can hold a prisoner like possession to keep them from being coup de graced can't you? Something like that. Been a while since I've had it come up.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But many nations respect the moral authority of paladins enough to give them the authority to take care of such matters themselvesCitation? Politicians/nobles are the last people that would want to give hack happy paladins the ability to behead anything that dings on their detect evil...
Though I'm also curious as to a citation, remember that "hack happy paladins" who "behead anything that dings on their detect evil" don't exist in the canon of the game world. They exist only in the hands of PCs.
I'd tentatively venture the position that if a player's character is not someone that most decent people in the game world would feel comfortable assuming they know what they're doing and granting them that authority, the player is probably not really roleplaying a paladin.
|
|
I'm not 100% clear on the definition of PvP in these circumstances. If my Flowing Monk bodyguard had been there, and had redirected the cleric's attacks onto herself, or used her interrupts to reposition the cleric and foil the attack, would those actions have been allowable under PFS rules?Expect table variation.I once played at a table where going against another character's will defined PvP.
You can hold a prisoner like possession to keep them from being coup de graced can't you? Something like that. Been a while since I've had it come up.
Going against another character's will constituted PvP? That's... wow. That's quite special. If that were actually how it worked, nobody I play with would ever be getting anything done because half what we do would be PvP. Our characters are widely varied in personality, intention, and alignment enough that someone is always having their toes stepped on. Despite this, they manage to cooperate in the end. But seriously, that is an EXTREME (and unsupported) view of PvP.
|
|
To the original poster, I feel your pain. Discovering an entire table of murderous, thieving, bloodthirsty thugs gets old fast.
Part of the problem is that the campaign does not do anything to discourage this behavior. PCs can just murder people in the streets of a city, often in broad daylight, with no consequences whatsoever.
The campaign world of PFS does not reflect Golarion, in which PCs really can't do that. The campaign actually rewards despicable behavior, so it's no wonder that the behaviors are repeated, in your case week after week. Heck, even the in-character piracy thread assumes bloodthirsty Pathfinders when it asks for volunteers for a mass slaughter.
Your players are merely learning from the feedback the campaign gives them.
-Matt
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Well, I'll give an example of something I have experienced. There's a scenario where you wind up in combat with extremely weak things. They are somewhat restrained, but they still make attacks against you once you're in range. Furthermore, you can't actually avoid going in range. More importantly, you're also in combat with individuals that're an actual threat during your first encounter with these less-than-threatening individuals. Now evidently it's considered an alignment infraction to kill these despite that they're the ones attacking you when you get in range. How exactly is killing them to avoid further injury an act of evil? They ARE attacking you, and they DO have the ability to deal damage.
As your GM for this event, I can explain. The enemies you speak of were insane as a result of some really awful things that had been done to them, but they could be cured. Killing them off when they could be healed of their mental afflictions is fairly evil, especially considering that they are dealing about 1d2 to a level 5 party. Also, it was statistically impossible for them to hit your character, as I recall.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the original poster, I feel your pain. Discovering an entire table of murderous, thieving, bloodthirsty thugs gets old fast.
Part of the problem is that the campaign does not do anything to discourage this behavior. PCs can just murder people in the streets of a city, often in broad daylight, with no consequences whatsoever.
** spoiler omitted **
The campaign world of PFS does not reflect Golarion, in which PCs really can't do that. The campaign actually rewards despicable behavior, so it's no wonder that the behaviors are repeated, in your case week after week. Heck, even the in-character piracy thread assumes bloodthirsty Pathfinders when it asks for volunteers for a mass slaughter.
Your players are merely learning from the feedback the campaign gives them.
-Matt
In each of those scenarios, it is justified because you're attacked each time. However, there is another scenario, The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch, which is almost entirely what you are complaining of.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the features of Living Greyhawk that I miss was the many regions that developed a legal code that identified unlawful behavior, including penalties and rules for softer sentencing based on PC skills/roleplay. I always loved that it was illegal to harm a horse in Ket, but you could kill elves as if they were monsters.
Would it be so arduous to develop a PFS legal code for Absalom and the five original Faction nations? Would defining crime & punishment in PFS lead to more problems at the table, or would it dampen some of the situations we've been talking about?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Playing a CN Rogue/Face-Stabber, I enjoy letting other criminals run free. Seriously, they were just getting paid to ambush us. If we stop the ambush, make them tell all their secrets, and then take all their stuff, isn't that bad enough? Let them run away (emphasis on AWAY) and never come back.
If the GM wants to bring some of those punks back to take their vengeance halfway through the scenario, I'll have little remorse about finalizing them.
It's EASY to let people go. It's HARD to take bad guys to the authorities. I find it's the Lawful that makes things more difficult than the Good sometimes.
Then we'd have to talk about whether the person gets away with crimes, and how they work with faction missions and pathfinder society work, among other things. Best leave that in the scenario when it would come up I think.
|
|
I'm not 100% clear on the definition of PvP in these circumstances. If my Flowing Monk bodyguard had been there, and had redirected the cleric's attacks onto herself, or used her interrupts to...And if I were a player at a table where something like what RE described were to happen, my good, and even some of my neutral, PCs would have taken some sort of non-lethal PvP action to prevent it, which probably would have forced the GM to step in and adjudicate the situation. As a GM, I'd allow the good PCs to step in to prevent a cold blooded murder. If the player insisted on going through with such a clearly evil act, then I'd give them one final warning before declaring that their character was now unplayable under PFS rules, converting them to an NPC, and allowing the other PCs to kill/subdue them.Since PvP, even nonlethal PvP, isn't allowed, we did what we could; we left in disgust and made it clear we wouldn't be helping if it turned out to be a close fight and not a salughter (we had no idea what the orc could do if provoked since it was 10-11 subtier and all the 10s and 11s had just left the level 7 cleric and magus alone, but it turned out the NPC, meant to be a friendly RP encounter, was still easily killed). Meanwhile the second paladin and the samurai couldn't process what was going on and stared, stunned as the whole thing unfolded. The elven magus, who despised orcs, supported the Erastil cleric in killing the peaceful orc. The cleric was also attacking for lethal and giving his companion a kill order against other orcs who were clearly attacking us mistakenly (they thought we killed their leader and were in league with undead, while we were there to help against the undead), even though everyone else was trying to do nonlethal and the paladin needed info for her faction mission still at that time (to alleviate the faction mission part, the GM just flat-out stated that those particular orcs' deaths wouldn't prevent her mission).
The way I read it, deflecting the attacks is not technically PvP, but using an attack on the PC (and a combat maneuver is an attack) would be. That's said, when it makes sense, people in the games I play in usually waive the no-PvP rule to allow for things like this. That said, there was no real "safe haven" to put the orc, so it would have been pretty-much impossible to prevent the cleric from slipping out at some point and killing the orc, so there was no point in creating drama at the table when the end result was clear. All the characters who were against the killing knew we had to "Explore Report Cooperate", so we tried to convince him, and then we walked away and refused to be a part of it when he insisted.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, there is another scenario, The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch, which is almost entirely what you are complaining of.
However, there is another scenario, The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch, which is almost entirely what you are complaining of.** spoiler omitted **
The pathfinder society apparently sucks at being good sometimes. I've seen that before too, little ridiculous. When I first started playing I was really hoping to be a hero more often than not.
|
|
Most people play fantasy games as an escape, form of catharsis or just plain fantasy! In a game you can do things you never could in real life and in some cases never would. One of these things for many is dealing with evil decisively. We live in a world of moral ambiguity, a world where we watch criminals escape punishment because of technicalities and law abiders often feel punished for the fact that they follow the rules.
In fantasy we can deal directly with evil in a way we perhaps wish society would deal with evil in the real world. No courts, lengthy appeals, whining or indecision. In a game you put down evil and feel good about it and that is how the game was designed.
Sure if you want to play morally ambiguous with neutral monsters and "good" goblins or you want to try to create civil rights for anti-paladins...go for it. But I don't think that is why most people play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have found that many groups of adventurers, regardless of game system, eventually evolve from whatever they started as into the League of Incredible Bastards.
This gets more pronounced the higher in power they got, but it's hardly unique to Pathfinder. Hell, I remember the old Living City High Level Campaigns. 90% of the characters there, arrogant cynical bastards.
-j