I had one player who didn't want to kill the sentient female zombie.
Other players believed that she had to die.
The first player tried to stop the others from killing her.
He took an opportunity attack as one PC tried to move to attack her. He failed to hit the PC.
He then put himself between the female zombie a a summoned celestial eagle.
As I read the rules, I understand that by attacking another PC he loses his character.
Am I correct?
The PC who summoned the eagle wanted to attack the first PC.
Would this attack have caused the summoner to lose his character?
Unsure on this one.
I can understand each players' point of view.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Sidney Kuhn wrote: He took an opportunity attack as one PC tried to move to attack her. He failed to hit the PC. He shouldn't have, and you shouldn't have allowed him to, as PvP is strictly prohibited in PFS organised play. See the section 'No Player-versus-Player Combat' on page 20 of the GtPFSOP v4.3.
Quote: The PC who summoned the eagle wanted to attack the first PC. He might have wanted to, but he isn't allowed to. See the same section of the Guide.
Players wanting to commit PvP actions should be told that they can't, referring to the Guide if necessary. If the issue continues, it's an out of character conflict, and should be dealt with as such, involving the event co-ordinator if necessary.
Quote: As I read the rules, I understand that by attacking another PC he loses his character. Quote: Would this attack have caused the summoner to lose his character? You can have your character retired due to alignment shifting to evil (see 'Alignment Infractions', page 36 of the Guide v4.3), not from committing PvP actions. They are two separate things.
Paz, I do understand this rule as you have quoted.
The issue, as I saw it, in game, was that two players had different views of what was the "RIGHT" thing to do.
We discussed it and the player who wanted to "attack" the other PC in order to stop the other PC from attacking the "sentient zombie" (who was pleading with the party not to kill her) was warned that such an action would remove his PC from the game.
I do understand all the players' points of view, as to how their PC should be run.
The situation was a moral dilemma, IMHO.
The rule as written:
No Player-versus-Player Combat
The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to
provide an enjoyable experience for as many players
as possible. Player-versus-player conflict only sours a
session. While killing another character might seem like
fun to you, it certainly won’t be for the other character’s
player. Even if you feel that killing another PC is in
character for your PC at this particular moment, just
figure out some other way for your character to express
herself. In short, you can never voluntarily use your
character to kill another character—ever. Note that
this does not apply to situations where your character is
mind-controlled by an NPC and is forced by that NPC to
attack a fellow Pathfinder.
In the game in question, I didn't see the PvP combat as to the "Death" but to stop the PC from doing something the other player found to be morally wrong.
Alignment Infractions
Characters who commit potentially evil acts . . . However, “that’s just what my character would do” is not a defense for behaving like a jerk. 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. . . . The PC should be given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences. . . . Hence, the GM can issue a warning to the player
through a “feeling” he receives from his deity, a vision he is given, his conscience talking to him, or some other similar roleplaying event. . . . This measure is a last resort; there is more than one way to play a given alignment. If a character has become wantonly evil as defined above, the GM should escalate the report to the convention coordinator, or the local Venture-Captain or Venture-Lieutenant. If they agree with the GM, then the character is deemed wantonly evil and considered removed from the campaign. Again, these measures should be taken as a very last resort.
In the event of a wantonly evil character, record the character as “Dead,” and the person who enters the tracking sheet should check that box as well. If the convention coordinator, Venture-Captain, or Venture-Lieutenant decides the character fits the criteria for being wantonly evil, she will then email the campaign coordinator to advise him of the situation, including the player’s name, Pathfinder Society Number, character name, and email address. She will advise the player of these actions and offer the player the campaign coordinator’s email address so the player may present his case.
The Campaign Coordinator will present all facts to the Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants at large with all names (both player and character) removed. If the majority of Venture-Captains and Venture Lieutenants feel that the act was wantonly evil and the character is irrevocably evil, then character will remain removed from the campaign. If the majority feel the character should be able to atone for his actions, the campaign coordinator will contact the player and advise him of such. The email may be printed and taken to the next game session so the GM may adjudicate the atonement and document it on the Chronicle sheet of the that game.
The problem here is that the PC was trying to save a creature that the PC believe was innocent so I don't see that player's actions a "EVIL". Also, I don't see their actions as "behaving like a jerk".
I would have to admit that I failed to follow the prohibition of the PvP rule. My bad.
I really had a problem adjudicating the situation. However, I believe that all the players were OK with what we ended up with.
All I can try to do is better next time. :(
Exactly; we all make mistakes. I was just pointing out that as the GM you do have some guidelines to fall back on.
PFS players need to remember that they're not just a random party thrown together by circumstance, they're a professional team of Pathfinder agents. Explore, Report, COOPERATE. There is an in-character reason why they shouldn't be drawing swords against each other.
Neither point of view is evil, per se, so I don't think characters being removed from play should even have come up. But given that the Pathfinders are taking on this mission for the clergy of Pharasma, which views all undead as an unnatural abomination, I do wonder how the PC defending the zombie was expecting to get her out through the cathedral eventually.
There are specific escape routes for the Zombie written into the module, as it is actually assumed in the module that some PC's will make a deal with it in exchange for helping it escape the area (none of the escape routes go through the cathedral).
In the end though players cannot lose their PC's for PvP simply because as the GM its your call as to if they can or cannot even attack each other, some GM's are more lenient on the no PvP rules and some are less so but regardless of which way you choose a player cannot lose their PC for PvP as you can just say no.
Caderyn wrote: There are specific escape routes for the Zombie written into the module, as it is actually assumed in the module that some PC's will make a deal with it in exchange for helping it escape the area (none of the escape routes go through the cathedral). OK; it's a long time since I GMed it...
Or that she will run away, if circumstances warrant.
IMO, this is the point where the GM actually sits back, has the players (not the PCs) move their chairs back, and see if they can reach an agreement by discussion, in or out of character.
Or, in the case of either side, figure out a way to fulfill their side without PvP.
Darkness, followed by a PC with Darkvision sneaking the zombie out or killing it, as appropriate, for example. Bluiff tying her up, but leave the ropes loose so she can "escape". etc.
Recent threads in GM Discussion
|
