Evil at the table.

[FLite]

Looking for input.

What do you do when a single PC decides to do an evil act, even though he has been warned that it is evil? I'm not talking about light theft or killing prisoners who surrendered. I'm talking about cut and dry evil, with the rest of the party objecting and telling the PC to stop, but unable to do anything about it without violating PvP rules?

Does the answer change if the PC's actions will kill the party / fail the mission?

I feel like "well, you can't stop him, but he will lose his PC unless he pays for an atonement," is less than comforting to the people who are facing losing their PC's unless they pay for a body recovery and a raise dead.

[downerbeautiful]

FLite wrote:

Looking for input.

What do you do when a single PC decides to do an evil act, even though he has been warned that it is evil? I'm not talking about light theft or killing prisoners who surrendered. I'm talking about cut and dry evil, with the rest of the party objecting and telling the PC to stop, but unable to do anything about it without violating PvP rules?

Does the answer change if the PC's actions will kill the party / fail the mission?

I feel like "well, you can't stop him, but he will lose his PC unless he pays for an atonement," is less than comforting to the people who are facing losing their PC's unless they pay for a body recovery and a raise dead.

There's been an evil player/character locally, so I'll do my best to share the counseling I've been given from my VC and VL about the situation.

If the player has been warned that the action he wants his character to make is evil, and he chooses to do it anyway, then his alignment shifts one step down. This happens every time his character makes the choice to do something evil. Once his alignment is evil, his character is reported dead; I was told nothing about allowing atonement, and frankly if he wanted that after his alignment shift, I'd send him to the VC with a "note from the teacher" explaining the "office visit," and the two of them can figure out atonement. Atonement shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail-free card for those who wish to commit evil acts. (This isn't to say that I would never sign off on an atonement, just that if a player deliberately/continually chooses evil, I would send him to someone with more power than me. It's a good slap on the wrist, and sometimes actions cause alignment shifts, but atonement shouldn't be abused.)

If his choice will cause the party to fail the mission, TPK, or otherwise, then I suggest you take a break for GMing for a moment to pull the player aside and explain the general ramifications of his actions, i.e. "If you do this, everyone, including you, dies. Period. You've been warned. Moreover, your alignment shifts one more toward evil, and if you're evil, you're reported as dead."

From page 19 of Guide 5.0, "Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not be tolerated... use your own discretion. Extreme or repetitive cases should be resolved by asking the offender to leave the table." This, you can easily argue, qualifies as an extreme example. If he refuses to explore, report, and co-operate, then hand him his cert and move on with the table.

[That Porter Kid]

So I copy/pasted the official stance on alignment infractions from the PFS Guide to Play version 5 page 33-34.

BLOCK TEXT! You have been warned...:

Players are responsible for their characters’ actions. Killing an innocent, wanton destruction, and other acts that can be construed as evil by the GM may be considered alignment infractions. “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. 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. We believe a deity would forgive a onetime bad choice as long as the action wasn’t too egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport, etc.). 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.
If infractions continue in the course of the scenario or sanctioned module or adventure path, an alignment change may be in order. If the GM deems these continued actions warrant an alignment change, she should note it on the character’s Chronicle sheet at the end of the session in the Conditions Gained box. The character may remove this gained condition through an atonement spell. If the condition is removed, the GM should also note it on the Chronicle sheet.

Characters who become wantonly evil, whose actions are deliberate and without motive or provocation, are retired from the campaign. 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 way that I have seen it done, because it happened to me (Though I still argue the point that "The Homeless" are not people and are not under the same laws for "murder" as the rest of us, but I digress...) was the GM talked to the VC at the shop and they asked why the "crime" was committed. Hearing the response they said, "Yup that is evil, your character is in prison now. And it doesn't sound like your sorry, so no atonement chance for you. This decision is final and no amount of arguing or counterpoints will matter."

So, what I would recommend is warn them in a manner you see fit. If they follow through with their action, throw the book at um and tell him/her that that isn't how PFS rolls and ping their character with a check in the death box. Though I would give um the atonement chance to get their character back. The method is rough and messy but I haven't done any belatedly eager evil actions since, so it worked in my case. So a strong pimp hand is sometimes a good thing.

If the action leads to a TPK, good thing all the people at the table were playing pre-mades and applying table credit to a level 1 character.

[downerbeautiful]

That Porter Kid wrote:

If the action leads to a TPK, good thing all the people at the table were playing pre-mades and applying table credit to a level 1 character.

Well, I was going to say something else, but then I finally understand what you were implying. While illegal, I would maybe go that route as a GM. I'd consider at least offering it, but I'd first remove the problematic player from the table. That is a legal option for the GM.

Yes, sometimes a strong backhand is necessary to keep players in line, figuratively.

[Coraith]

That Porter Kid wrote:

So I copy/pasted the official stance on alignment infractions from the PFS Guide to Play version 5 page 33-34.

** spoiler omitted **...

It is not that you weren't sorry; I believe it was that you were lawfully imprisoned and didn't have access to an atonement spell at the conclusion of the adventure since you were in prison.

[FLite]

Hmm... Far be it from me to disagree with a venture captain, especially without knowing the details, but I would expect that most cities would have priests to minister to prisoners. After all, you want to catch them when they are penitent if you want to get them to atone.

But this is starting to wander off the topic of how do you handle it *at the table* at the time it is happening. (I think I understand the process of what happens after the table closes.)

[downerbeautiful]

FLite wrote:

Hmm... Far be it from me to disagree with a venture captain, especially without knowing the details, but I would expect that most cities would have priests to minister to prisoners. After all, you want to catch them when they are penitent if you want to get them to atone.

But this is starting to wander off the topic of how do you handle it *at the table* at the time it is happening. (I think I understand the process of what happens after the table closes.)

During the scenario you explain that the character will receive an alignment infraction for his action. Having alignment fall so far that he's evil means his character is dead. Tell him that. (I'll figure he's CN because they're typically the only characters who "do evil things;" not to pick on CN, as I play it, too. That means one infraction sends him to evil.) If he still chooses to do his evil act, you can either take the time to pull him aside and explain the terrible consequences of his actions or you can hand him his cert and dismiss him. What he decides to do has a direct effect and deadly on the rest of the players. If he chooses to take his action, remove him from the game, as he's being a jerk-face.

[The black raven]

One evil action takes you down one full step in alignment ?

Wow. This PFS institution really strives hard to be Good. Makes you wonder why ;-)

All those poor Neutral Clerics of Evil gods who have less leeway to do evil than a Good character. That would be almost funny if it did not hurt characterization so much.

No wonder I pay very little attention to backstory and role-play when playing PFS. The whole shebang is just an opportunity for me to get away with the cheesiest legal builds.

(Note that cheesy does not mean overpowered in my case, actually very far from it. More on the "build that was never imagined when people wrote the RAW" side.)

[FLite]

black raven

Actually, it is a pattern of evil actions, or a single *unjustified* wanton evil act (I believe the example given is burning down an orphanage or slaughtering a whole village that did nothing to you.)

[downerbeautiful]

The black raven wrote:

One evil action takes you down one full step in alignment ?

Wow. This PFS institution really strives hard to be Good. Makes you wonder why ;-)

All those poor Neutral Clerics of Evil gods who have less leeway to do evil than a Good character. That would be almost funny if it did not hurt characterization so much.

No wonder I pay very little attention to backstory and role-play when playing PFS. The whole shebang is just an opportunity for me to get away with the cheesiest legal builds.

(Note that cheesy does not mean overpowered in my case, actually very far from it. More on the "build that was never imagined when people wrote the RAW" side.)

Slightly on topic, I argue I should play LG characters so that they have more room to fall, yeah. If I'm not mistaken, the step down from CN is CE.

There's a bit of leeway with the evil actions, as in your god might forgive you depending on the severity of the act and the character's contrition. If an act is evil enough to kill the rest of the party then as a GM who warned the player, I'd rule it as sufficiently bad enough to require a drop in alignment (and the corresponding atonement or dead status). Even Guide 5.0 notes that perpetual evil won't be fixed by atonement and then the character dies.

[The black raven]

downerbeautiful wrote:

Slightly on topic, I argue I should play LG characters so that they have more room to fall, yeah. If I'm not mistaken, the step down from CN is CE.

There's a bit of leeway with the evil actions, as in your god might forgive you depending on the severity of the act and the character's contrition. If an act is evil enough to kill the rest of the party then as a GM who warned the player, I'd rule it as sufficiently bad enough to require a drop in alignment (and the corresponding atonement or dead status). Even Guide 5.0 notes that perpetual evil won't be fixed by atonement and then the character dies.

I think we have a confusion here between "evil act" and "act that gets your party killed".

Having both in the same thread muddles things IMO and may lead to posters speaking way past each other.

[FLite]

Black raven, if you look back at my origional post, the origional point of the topic is:

What do you do when the player is doing an evil act that the rest of the party opposes. And does what you do change if the character is doing an act that is blatantly evil, the rest of the party opposes it, *and* it is going to get the rest of the party killed.

We aren't talking about border cases, we are talking about what do you do as a GM when a player goes off the dark end, and tries to take the rest of the table with him. If you want to debate PFS attitudes towards bad people, there are plenty of other threads about that. I am also not talking about when a player does something stupid (for example in the heat of combat) that gets everyone killed.

I am looking for recommendations for GMcraft for keeping the table moving and the other players having fun when one player wants to do something that the rest of the players are opposed to, but can't stop him from doing because of the no PvP rule, and which while it has severe consequences for the player, doesn't have those consequences kick in till after the game.

[downerbeautiful]

The black raven wrote:

downerbeautiful wrote:

Slightly on topic, I argue I should play LG characters so that they have more room to fall, yeah. If I'm not mistaken, the step down from CN is CE.

There's a bit of leeway with the evil actions, as in your god might forgive you depending on the severity of the act and the character's contrition. If an act is evil enough to kill the rest of the party then as a GM who warned the player, I'd rule it as sufficiently bad enough to require a drop in alignment (and the corresponding atonement or dead status). Even Guide 5.0 notes that perpetual evil won't be fixed by atonement and then the character dies.

I think we have a confusion here between "evil act" and "act that gets your party killed".

Having both in the same thread muddles things IMO and may lead to posters speaking way past each other.

FLite wrote:

What do you do when a single PC decides to do an evil act, even though he has been warned that it is evil? I'm not talking about light theft or killing prisoners who surrendered. I'm talking about cut and dry evil, with the rest of the party objecting and telling the PC to stop, but unable to do anything about it without violating PvP rules?

Does the answer change if the PC's actions will kill the party / fail the mission?

emphasis mine...

I'm not confusing them, I'm trying to answer FLite's initial query. If the act is sufficiently evil and some of its consequences cause a TPK, then there are suggestions/guidelines in the Guide to Organized play. Part of the tenants are to co-operate. Even paladins turn a blind-eye sometimes to further the mission because of the "greater good." I'm not suggesting that a neutral decision that causes a TPK is evil and should be avoided, I'm saying that an evil act that the entire table is pleading against is a bloody evil act.

[Coraith]

FLite wrote:

Hmm... Far be it from me to disagree with a venture captain, especially without knowing the details, but I would expect that most cities would have priests to minister to prisoners. After all, you want to catch them when they are penitent if you want to get them to atone.

Yes but not spend 500+g on a murderer of a helpless old man begging for change, so it would likely take a few years of services to truly repent and bring their alignment back to the neutral/good side of things.

[FLite]

Yeah, I figure the money to pay would come out of his (confiscated?) belonging.

[Coraith]

FLite wrote:

Yeah, I figure the money to pay would come out of his (confiscated?) belonging.

That depends on the country one is in. In The United States every state has different laws on property rights when regarding convicts, so it is hardly universal.

[Malag]

FLite wrote:

Looking for input.

What do you do when a single PC decides to do an evil act, even though he has been warned that it is evil? I'm not talking about light theft or killing prisoners who surrendered. I'm talking about cut and dry evil, with the rest of the party objecting and telling the PC to stop, but unable to do anything about it without violating PvP rules?

Does the answer change if the PC's actions will kill the party / fail the mission?

I feel like "well, you can't stop him, but he will lose his PC unless he pays for an atonement," is less than comforting to the people who are facing losing their PC's unless they pay for a body recovery and a raise dead.

You need to wager sometimes the benefit of everyone at a table. It's your duty as a GM (you were the GM right?) and everyone should have fun.

This is a tricky ground because you feel obligated by the rules that player can do what he pleases. Well, you are dead wrong. If the player is literally doing his worst then just refuse to play along. Explain him about not being a jerk and how the rest of party might suffer because of it. If he is persistent, then manage something in the benefit of party. It's simpler to have 1 displeased player instead of 4 or 5 displeased players.

What I am trying to say, sometimes warnings won't cut it, but these tend to be rare corner-cases.

Adam

[Jiggy]

Player: "I do X."
GM: "No you don't."

^ Under extreme circumstances, this is acceptable.

[Andreas Forster]

Quote:

If the player is literally doing his worst then just refuse to play along. Explain him about not being a jerk and how the rest of party might suffer because of it. If he is persistent, then manage something in the benefit of party. It's simpler to have 1 displeased player instead of 4 or 5 displeased players.

I was going to suggest something similar.

Basically, PFS scenarios were written with a non-evil party in mind who do their best to cooperate and solve the problem at hand. Because of this, any PvP situations will make successfully finishing the scenario very hard or even impossible.
If one of the player decides he wants to be a jerk and commit evil actions against the party, essentially creating a PvP encounter, it's the GM's duty to inform that player that this is an evil act and will result in the character being reported as dead.
If the player still wants to perform the evil act, and the GM thinks the act may cause negative results for the rest of the party (damage, TPK, etc.), then I wouldn't blame the GM for sending in some kind of deus ex machina to quickly remove the evil PC before he can cause any damage.

[WalterGM]

Jiggy wrote:

Player: "I do X."

GM: "No you don't."

^ Under extreme circumstances, this is acceptable.

Player: "But I want to do it anyway, so I do."

GM: "You get arrested? I guess?"

[Jiggy]

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Player: "I do X."

GM: "No you don't."

^ Under extreme circumstances, this is acceptable.

Player: "But I want to do it anyway, so I do."

GM: "No you don't. Pick something else to do or leave the table."

[Lormyr]

This is how I handle such things when GMing:

If the PC attempts to undertake an evil action that is not overly disruptive to the game or other PCs, I will caution them that their action is evil. If they choose to go through with it, I will make a note of it on their chronicle sheet. If such actions occur more than once during the same session without excellent justification (which is possible), I will inform them that going through with another evil action will cause an alignment shift and let them make their choice.

If the evil action taken is either considerably disruptive or going against the wishes of literally every other PC at the table, I attempt to do one of two things in the following order of importance:

1). If the action will not cause mission failure and the scenario in question has excellent built in consequences for the evil action, I will let it ride out so the PC and reap what his actions have sown.

2). If the evil action taken will cause mission failure or otherwise cause the rest of the table grief, I will just veto it with an explanation that this is a cooperative game that is supposed to have a friendly experience with fellow players. If the offending player comes around to sense, excellent, let's carry on. If not, I will just eject him/her from the table. I don't have time or patience for your BS.

Dealing with these things as a GM is easy. It's when you are the player dealing with this that it can be difficult to handle.

[WalterGM]

Jiggy wrote:

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Player: "I do X."

GM: "No you don't."

^ Under extreme circumstances, this is acceptable.

Player: "But I want to do it anyway, so I do."

GM: "No you don't. Pick something else to do or leave the table."

I would really dislike to pull this card. I'd rather allow the player to dig their own grave, inform them that they are doing so, and then leave them in it once they have finished, provided it doesn't derail the game.

GM: "If you do this, you'll get arrested."
Player: "Fine! I don't care about this character anyway."
GM: "Works for me."

[Jiggy]

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Player: "I do X."

GM: "No you don't."

^ Under extreme circumstances, this is acceptable.

Player: "But I want to do it anyway, so I do."

GM: "No you don't. Pick something else to do or leave the table."

I would really dislike to pull this card. I'd rather allow the player to dig their own grave, inform them that they are doing so, and then leave them in it once they have finished, provided it doesn't derail the game.

GM: "If you do this, you'll get arrested."
Player: "Fine! I don't care about this character anyway."
GM: "Works for me."

I did say "under extreme circumstances". :)

[WalterGM]

Jiggy wrote:

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Player: "I do X."

GM: "No you don't."

^ Under extreme circumstances, this is acceptable.

Player: "But I want to do it anyway, so I do."

GM: "No you don't. Pick something else to do or leave the table."

I would really dislike to pull this card. I'd rather allow the player to dig their own grave, inform them that they are doing so, and then leave them in it once they have finished, provided it doesn't derail the game.

GM: "If you do this, you'll get arrested."
Player: "Fine! I don't care about this character anyway."
GM: "Works for me."

I did say "under extreme circumstances". :)

Agreed then :)

[The black raven]

I believe that given that the action will end up in TPK, it qualifies as PvP (and thus prohibited).

Whether it is evil or not has (and should have) nothing to do with it IMO.

[Chris Donnangelo]

When a player character commits a grossly evil act that would get their character removed from the campaign/marked as dead(especially one the rest of the party is willing to throw down to prevent), isn't that player required to hand the character sheet to the GM?
And that character now an NPC?
And therefore PvP rules don't apply?
^_^

[Sniggevert]

Christopher Donnangelo wrote:

When a player character commits a grossly evil act that would get their character removed from the campaign/marked as dead(especially one the rest of the party is willing to throw down to prevent), isn't that player required to hand the character sheet to the GM?

And that character now an NPC?
And therefore PvP rules don't apply?
^_^

I've never heard of that...

A person's character sheet is personal property and can not be taken from someone w/out their consent. You're opening up a whole new can of worms if you try out something like that, along with probably escalating an already tense situation.

[Kyle Baird]

GM: "Unfortunately that's a very distinct evil act and such actions and characters who perform such actions aren't allowed in the PFS Organized Campaign."
Player: "Why not?"
GM: "One of the reasons is because a of lot people mistakenly use an evil alignment to act like a jerk. Preventing characters from being evil and performing obviously evil actions helps mitigate this type of behavior."
Player: "Well I don't think my action is obviously evil!"
GM: "Other GMs might agree with you, however, I don't. Performing said action isn't allowed at this table and in my opinion shouldn't be allowed at any table within PFS Organized Play."
Player: "Well I'm doing it anyway."
GM: "Okay, but your character will slide down into an evil alignment and be removed from the campaign unless you're willing to pay for an atonement after your action and before you do anything else within this scenario. You could also end the scenario now for your character and get a partial chronicle, but you'll still need an atonement before you leave this table or else I'll report the character as dead."
Player: "Dead? He's not dead!"
GM: "Well, he might be, but even if he's not, that's my way of reporting to the system that the character no longer exists with our organized play campaign."
Player: "Okay well..."
GM: "At this point, we need to continue the scenario and get things moving again. I've laid it all out for you, what's your character doing?"

[Care Baird]

Kyle Baird wrote:

TL;DR

Just tear their character sheet up before their eyes and drink their tears. Much more efficient.

[Chris Mortika]

Occupational safety procedures cannot recommend ingesting a player's body secretions.

[Finlanderboy]

I honestly never had a character fight me this much. The farthest I ever had to go was explain why a negative channel in a very crowded area was evil.

When I put my foot down and told him it would get his character removed from organized play and why he just unhappily did somethign else.

It was a brief moment and resolved with quick two returns.

The problem players I encounter try to find legal ways to grief other players, or out of game jerkiness

[redward]

That Porter Kid wrote:

Though I still argue the point that "The Homeless" are not people and are not under the same laws for "murder" as the rest of us, but I digress...

Is this a real thing that someone really wrote?

[downerbeautiful]

redward wrote:

That Porter Kid wrote:

Though I still argue the point that "The Homeless" are not people and are not under the same laws for "murder" as the rest of us, but I digress...

Is this a real thing that someone really wrote?

I chose to assume that the statement used the character's opinions.

[BigNorseWolf]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Occupational safety procedures cannot recommend ingesting a player's body secretions.

Sorry, the shadow lodge is kaput. There is no osha compliance here. Carry on with the faction mission.

[Finlanderboy]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

Occupational safety procedures cannot recommend ingesting a player's body secretions.

Sorry, the shadow lodge is kaput. There is no osha compliance here. Carry on with the faction mission.

What's a faction mission? My faction is not involved with this scenario.

[The Beard]

The funny thing is that I've found lawful good characters to be far more disruptive than ones dancing on the line with evil. From what I've been told (and read on various forums), this is not something unique to me.

That being said, the original poster would be well within their rights to simply tell the player to change their action or leave the table. As that indeed goes far above and beyond the call of `don't be a jerk.` Doesn't much matter what the alignment is if they're just being a jackass, now does it? Though, considering intentional and wanton evil also being involved, I'd say give them an alignment infraction AND remove them from the table if they refuse compliance.

[Mystic Lemur]

The same things you do to handle a Disruptive "Neutral" character can be used to handle a Disruptive Good character. A jerk who is being a jerk for all the right reasons is still a jerk.

[The Beard]

That you can. It's just a lot harder to give an alignment infraction when what they're doing is indeed good/neutral. One can however still ask that they A.) settle down or B.) leave the table. Sadly, that sometimes becomes the only solution in some cases.

[Chris Donnangelo]

Sniggevert wrote:

I've never heard of that...

A person's character sheet is personal property and can not be taken from someone w/out their consent. You're opening up a whole new can of worms if you try out something like that, along with probably escalating an already tense situation.

Someone failed their saving throw versus joke...

[Sniggevert]

Christopher Donnangelo wrote:

Sniggevert wrote:

I've never heard of that...

A person's character sheet is personal property and can not be taken from someone w/out their consent. You're opening up a whole new can of worms if you try out something like that, along with probably escalating an already tense situation.

Someone failed their saving throw versus joke...

That crossed my mind as well. However, from some of the inane ideas I've read on these boards, and how vociferously they've been fought for it can be hard to tell intent without follow up on the boards.

[Genuine]

When I GM, I find that treating my problem players like my toddlers works quite well. I tell the players that it is my job (not the player's job) to enforce the rules. I also refuse to engage with player tantrums (or other actions that are clearly designed to provoke a reaction from me or the other players).

Given that 'no evil' is a PFS rule, then preventing evil actions becomes the GM's responsibility, not the responsibility of other players. Even if you've got a Paladin, those party member's evil acts that threaten your code remain the GM's responsibility. If the GM fails to prevent something, then that is on him, not on your Paladin.

Second, I've found that the vast majority of evil acts that players want to take are really aimed at the reactions of the other people at the table, and are not sincerely meant as gameplay actions (more on that later). I've got players who like to shout things like "start a riot," "burn down the mansion," "I attack the butler" at every opportunity. Basically they're being evil stupid because they find it fun. If I engage, asking them why, or telling them "no, you can't, that's evil," then we immediately begin an argument that ends with someone feeling grumpy. On the other hand, If I just smile and give them a brief acknowledgment before ignoring the declaration as thoroughly as I do a Monty Python reference, then the game moves on quickly without hurt feelings.

Occasionally, a player will want to do something that is arguably helpful to the mission, rather than simply destructive. They may want to break and enter, or desecrate a body to prevent raising, or engage in general murder-hobo activity. When this happens, it's easier to deal with. Alternate plans can be discussed, mitigating factors included (i.e. non lethal damage to innocent guards), etc. For that matter, objectively evil acts are often disregarded when they are performed for the sake of a mission (severed ties, I'm looking at you).

[Jiggy]

Genuine wrote:

Even if you've got a Paladin, those party member's evil acts that threaten your code remain the GM's responsibility.

Just as a quick aside, other people's actions don't threaten a paladin's status with his code.

[Chris Donnangelo]

Sniggevert wrote:

That crossed my mind as well. However, from some of the inane ideas I've read on these boards, and how vociferously they've been fought for it can be hard to tell intent without follow up on the boards.

Fair enough. I've seen some very interesting points argued to death on these boards as well, and I sometimes have to squint and say "Can't tell if Trolling or just stupid..."

My serious voice rarely includes emoticons. ^_^

[Lormyr]

Jiggy wrote:

Genuine wrote:

Even if you've got a Paladin, those party member's evil acts that threaten your code remain the GM's responsibility.

Just as a quick aside, other people's actions don't threaten a paladin's status with his code.

And to elaborate further, in PFS at least, you would also not risk falling by allowing others to complete their former faction missions or other scenario prompted faction-based story missions, even if they are pretty damn sketchy.

It might chafe the character a little bit, but you don't have to worry about suffering a mechanical penalization for such things.

[Genuine]

Lormyr wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Genuine wrote:

Even if you've got a Paladin, those party member's evil acts that threaten your code remain the GM's responsibility.

Just as a quick aside, other people's actions don't threaten a paladin's status with his code.

And to elaborate further, in PFS at least, you would also not risk falling by allowing others to complete their former faction missions or other scenario prompted faction-based story missions, even if they are pretty damn sketchy.

It might chafe the character a little bit, but you don't have to worry about suffering a mechanical penalization for such things.

While I still remain contaminated by my years in 3.5, I do know that pally's aren't really threatened by other player's actions. How some players try to play their paladins is another matter.