|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have an unpopular opinion and one that Seth has picked up on. Based on my interpretation of the RAW*, as Steve quoted, the rules specifically prohibit KILLING another player.
Well, how does this work exactly?
I swing a sword at them. We don't know if I'm killing them until i hit. Can I not swing if there's any possibility of killing him? Can I drop him to -1 less than his con and then let them bleed out next round? Can I sap them into unconsciousness next to the t rex and then slather them in BBQ sauce?
First, we have to assume by Player vs. Player, they meant Character vs. Character since we are playing a game after all and the former is quite illegal.
We don't have to assume that at all. You cannot claim "this is raw" and then pull this. It means exactly what it says: you can't fight with your fellow player using the proxy of your characters because it gets the players mad at each other. The players are going to get mad at each other whether their character is a corpse because of a pick to the head or they're polymorphed into a poodle.
|
I have an unpopular opinion and one that Seth has picked up on. Based on my interpretation of the RAW*, as Steve quoted, the rules specifically prohibit KILLING another player. It says nothing about hitting, spelling, combat maneuvering, etc. them. Because they repeatedly reference KILLING, I assume it is for a reason.
First, we have to assume by Player vs. Player, they meant Character vs. Character since we are playing a game after all and the former is quite illegal.
There are two rules involved here; the one concerning PvP and the (don't be a) Jerk rule. I do not force players to retract their actions even if they involve friendly collateral damage unless it directly results in a character's death. Players should never have to gain the permission of other players to perform in-game actions. It may be considerate, but short of required. I also do not interpret collateral damage as PvP.
That being said, it is usually fairly clear when a player is being a jerk. There are times when most/all of the actions people have posted above have their place in the game. There is some amount of table variation with this issue. However, if the player is being a jerk, I will address that directly and out of game as it has no place.
There is also a lesson to be learned by some players. Don't play intentionally confrontational PCs, especially if you are doing it just to get the GM or other players attention. Cooperate is a focal point of the campaign (IMO, the most important) and you should be actively doing things to further it. If your PC is such that it will often want to rage-kill NPCs or will be provoked by other characters, please use it in another campaign.
+1
|
|
I have an unpopular opinion and one that Seth has picked up on. Based on my interpretation of the RAW*, as Steve quoted, the rules specifically prohibit KILLING another player.Well, how does this work exactly?
I swing a sword at them. We don't know if I'm killing them until i hit. Can I not swing if there's any possibility of killing him? Can I drop him to -1 less than his con and then let them bleed out next round? Can I sap them into unconsciousness next to the t rex and then slather them in BBQ sauce?
First, we have to assume by Player vs. Player, they meant Character vs. Character since we are playing a game after all and the former is quite illegal.We don't have to assume that at all. You cannot claim "this is raw" and then pull this. It means exactly what it says: you can't fight with your fellow player using the proxy of your characters because it gets the players mad at each other. The players are going to get mad at each other whether their character is a corpse because of a pick to the head or they're polymorphed into a poodle.
You can't intentionally KILL a fellow player.
catching them in collateral damage is not intentionally killing them.
Hitting them with a sword to stop them from killing the guy that's your faction mission, is not intentionally killing them. Its getting them to stop killing that guy.
Intentionally killing them would be going all out, full attacking, with power attack and arcane strike and continuing when they are downed and/or coup de gracing.
As Bob said, its quite obvious when one player is trying to particularly kill the other player's character.
The No PVP rule has been really abused to mean lots of things it doesn't mean.
Sorry Paladin/Pharasmite, you can't kill my undead abomination, cause that's PvP.
BS, I say. As long as there is no jerkish behavior, and everyone is on the same page, then some things are ok that folks are using the PvP rule to obviate.
|
I swing a sword at them. We don't know if I'm killing them until i hit. Can I not swing if there's any possibility of killing him? Can I drop him to -1 less than his con and then let them bleed out next round? Can I sap them into unconsciousness next to the t rex and then slather them in BBQ sauce?
Swing the sword: Sure. If the damage turns out to be enough to kill, then retroactively change action.
Drop him to 1 away from dead and letting him bleed out: No, that's breaking the DBaJ rule.
Sap and leave to be eaten: No, that's breaking the DBaJ rule.
|
Maybe I'm just lucky in our players but I've NEVER seen any actual problems up here. We tell new players "no PVP without player permission" and people accept it. They don't ask exactly what we mean, they don't try and push the limits, they just cooperate. People only ask to do something that might be considered PVP if they have a good reason, people generally say yes for precisely the same reason.
Is all this discussion just theoretical? Or are people semi-regularly seeing actual problems?
|
|
Maybe I'm just lucky in our players but I've NEVER seen any actual problems up here. We tell new players "no PVP without player permission" and people accept it. They don't ask exactly what we mean, they don't try and push the limits, they just cooperate. People only ask to do something that might be considered PVP if they have a good reason, people generally say yes for precisely the same reason.
Is all this discussion just theoretical? Or are people semi-regularly seeing actual problems?
I've had to tell the color spray happy oracle to man up and get right in peoples faces to color spray things. Thats about it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swing the sword: Sure. If the damage turns out to be enough to kill, then retroactively change action.
I swing a sword at them. We don't know if I'm killing them until i hit. Can I not swing if there's any possibility of killing him? Can I drop him to -1 less than his con and then let them bleed out next round? Can I sap them into unconsciousness next to the t rex and then slather them in BBQ sauce?
There's nothing in the game for that. You can't just unroll the dice.
Drop him to 1 away from dead and letting him bleed out: No, that's breaking the DBaJ rule.
You have a weird definition of killing someone if damaging them to the point where they die 6 seconds later doesn't qualify.
Sap and leave to be eaten: No, that's breaking the DBaJ rule.
DBAJ is too over utilized to be enforcable. ANY time someone does something you don't like, "you're a jerk!"
|
|
I am definitely slanted towards Bob's viewpoint, as some players "Rping their characters" do things that would otherwise endanger either the mission or the other PC's lives by initiating combat that the majority would have avoided.
When this kind of thing happens I'll just ask the offending player if that's what thier character will do and then proceed to ask the other players what they will do. If their actions are counter to each other - roll for initiative and go at it - so long as there is no intentional killing I'm okay with it. I've seen people trip other characters, grapple(most common), disarm, etc.
We should expect table variation of PVP adjudication based on the dynamics within each specific game session. Although the no killing rule should always be enforced. Accidental killings are another matter.
|
There's nothing in the game for that. You can't just unroll the dice.
True, and yet, how many times have actions or rounds in a game been "rewound" to fix something, or to address a problem? If you want to head down the road of "...there is nothing in the game for [X}..." we can do that, but that line of thought is going to invalidate dozens of things, I imagine, that happen at many, many tables.
Here is my issue with the rule.
Like Bob, I think the rule is clear as it is written, that is, it prohibits the voluntary killing of one character by another. I accept that people read the prohibition more broadly, and as such, adjudicate it in a way that prohibits more than just killing. I think that's a reasonable interpretation, even though I don't agree with it.
Bob's point about "player vs. player" combat is that it would be illegal for one player to attack another, and that's why he said, in that case, it should be "Character vs. character" combat. Now, maybe some read that to mean that players cannot get into disputes with other players, and thus, under such a reading, means that one player cannot have his character do something to the character of another player (because the players would be in conflict with one another.) I agree with Bob on this point, and not the other interpretation.
This is why,in other threads (and I think earlier in this one), I suggested that the rule itself needs to be clarified. For me, the rule, as it is written, is clear. However, this thread, and others like it, indicate such is not the case.
So, why don't we ask the campaign management group about clarifying or re-writing the rule, and to the extent possible, put this debate to rest (particularly before it devolves into personal attacks, etc.)
-Mark
|
Here's the other thing (note, I am mostly in agreement with Bob on this as well). So, you are playing a Paladin, and the Gunslinger opens up on the person you just promised you'd protect. Nothing is stopping you from attacking the Gunslinger with non-lethal attacks. Also, playing in character nothing is stopping you from jumping in front of the target, taking the hit on yourself (as a GM, I would pretty much always rule that you take the hit - don't recall any rules that explicitly deal with taking a hit for someone else... though I could be wrong). In fact, the latter is what I would do if I had the chance as a Paladin. This will now emphasize that the gunlinger is the one being the jerk. It would also give action to the promise to protect.
That would be a far better solution than knocking out the person you promised to protect. As the paladin's player, I would warn the gunsligner that I was going to do that. Having done that... the gunslinger's player has to intentionally break the PvP rules in order to attack again.
There are ways to get around jerk players... and expose how much of a jerk they are being.
|
|
Swing the sword: Sure. If the damage turns out to be enough to kill, then retroactively change action.
I swing a sword at them. We don't know if I'm killing them until i hit. Can I not swing if there's any possibility of killing him? Can I drop him to -1 less than his con and then let them bleed out next round? Can I sap them into unconsciousness next to the t rex and then slather them in BBQ sauce?
There's nothing in the game for that. You can't just unroll the dice.
Drop him to 1 away from dead and letting him bleed out: No, that's breaking the DBaJ rule.
You have a weird definition of killing someone if damaging them to the point where they die 6 seconds later doesn't qualify.
Sap and leave to be eaten: No, that's breaking the DBaJ rule.DBAJ is too over utilized to be enforcable. ANY time someone does something you don't like, "you're a jerk!"
The dice being rolled doesnt matter at all in the game. If something needs to be changed retroactively, it can be changed retroactively. Thats part of trusting the GM to make the right call.
Leaving the guy to die 6 seconds later isnt killing him. It is being a jerk to the guy though, and shouldnt be allowed without the player having given permission (I mean like if the guy said 'yea, drop the fireball on me. Ill be fine. And then you drop him to 1 from dead).
DBAJ overutilization: I disagree. This is where the GM steps in and makes a decision on if the person really is being a jerk or if the behavior is fine. If you dont trust tthe GM to make a fair call, why play?
|
|
I am behind BNW on this one.
I go by a couple criteria for no PvP.
Voluntary Manslaughter and Involuntary Manslaughter.
BOTH involve Manslaughter, just differing degrees.
If I hit the fighter down to 1 HP in front of the dragon, and the dragon bites and kills him next turn, that is involuntary manslaughter. Normally a bite would not have killed him, but because I hit him down to 1, he died, indirectly because of me. Yes, it is being a jerk but is also pvp.
PvP and Dont be a Jerk are not mutually exclusive.
Dont Be A Jerk Covers a whole lot more than hitting another player:
-Being polite at table
-Not taking the table over for personal story
-Not yelling at others
-Not bullying others into the way you think you should go
Is it defined as "Killing" another player? Yes. Yes it is. I would lump bringing the fighter down to 1HP and leaving him to the dragon as definitely adequate to saying it is the players fault for his death.
PvP in EVERY computer game is defined as any number of hostile actions taken against a Player Character be it a simple swing of a sword, to paralysis.
Simple common sense would put Player Versus Player as any Hostile action from one Player to Another.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I hit the fighter down to 1 HP in front of the dragon, and the dragon bites and kills him next turn, that is involuntary manslaughter.
I think that makes you and the dragon accomplices in a murder.
If they can find evidence of a message spell before hand thats probably enough for a RICO case...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I hit the fighter down to 1 HP in front of the dragon, and the dragon bites and kills him next turn, that is involuntary manslaughter.I think that makes you and the dragon accomplices in a murder.
If they can find evidence of a message spell before hand thats probably enough for a RICO case...
~secretly deletes messages from phone~
|
|
PvP and Dont be a Jerk are not mutually exclusive.
This is a good point, and not one I was (intentionally) meaning to contradict.
My point I had been trying to make initially, though maybe I went a bit off my own topic, this is a table variance issue. The list of 'what if' scenarios is infinitely huge, so to try to make a blanket statement of something like 'if it would break Invisibility, you cant do it' is just wrong. No, not in all cases, but in enough that the blanket statement is likely doing no good.
If I hit the fighter down to 1 HP in front of the dragon, and the dragon bites and kills him next turn, that is involuntary manslaughter.I think that makes you and the dragon accomplices in a murder.
If they can find evidence of a message spell before hand thats probably enough for a RICO case...
I lolled.
|
|
If it would break invisibility it would break the no PVP rule. Since this is a metagame issue, I will allow more time for the players to talk it over than I would a normal strategy.
No* damaging the other characters
No inhibiting the other characters
No putting spell statuses on the other character
No cutting things that other characters are dangling from
No combat maneuvers on the other characters.
No messing with the players pets
No messing with the NPCs other players need for their faction mission
No messing with the other pcs pets or minions
If you lick it its yours.*without their consent of course applies to all of these.
yet none of this is covered in the "no pvp" rule. by your interpretation, you would lose your character if you cast a buff spell like bless that effects all allies in radius, after the raging superstitious barbarian said "don't cast that." your interpretation would also mean that no one can kill any enemies that one player said "I need for my faction mission". Heck, you couldn't even cast duration area of effect spells, because they would "inhibit the other characters".
This doesn't even begin to cover retaliating against/dealing with a dominated player.
I'd much rather have the current rule that states "no killing", backed up by the "don't be a jerk" rule, then make the changes you advocate, which would result in a lot more banned characters and unhappy players.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but just pointing out that there could be serious repercussions to your line of logic.
|
|
yet none of this is covered in the "no pvp" rule.
I already quoted extensively from the paragraph to show how it is against the no pvp rule. Again.
The rule is no player vs player COMBAT, not no player vs player killing.
Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session
by your interpretation, you would lose your character
Whoa whoa whoa.. NO. The rule is not "if you pvp another character your character dies"- Thats just asking to get DM protoplasm or "my character is about to retire" suicide bombers who take out other characters.
The rule is you CAN"T. It doesn't happen. the action can't be completed as dialed. 401 error action not found.
if you cast a buff spell like bless that effects all allies in radius, after the raging superstitious barbarian said "don't cast that."
Then you don't consider the barbarian an ally for that spell.
your interpretation would also mean that no one can kill any enemies that one player said "I need for my faction mission".
I consider that a feature, not a flaw. It prevents the osirion character from having to run into the room and throw themselves bodily over every sarcophagus before smashy can get to it with a hammer.
Heck, you couldn't even cast duration area of effect spells, because they would "inhibit the other characters".
Only if the player is in the radius. You're right that that gets a little murky. (I'd like to cast stone call now, HEY! I want to charge there! We're better off NOT being charged!)
This doesn't even begin to cover retaliating against/dealing with a dominated player.
A dominated character under the no pvp rule is fair game. Less belligerent options include grappling, and hitting them with enough subdual damage so they'll PROBABLY live...
I'd much rather have the current rule that states "no killing", backed up by the "don't be a jerk" rule, then make the changes you advocate, which would result in a lot more banned characters and unhappy players.
It doesn't ban anyone. The action doesn't happen.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but just pointing out that there could be serious repercussions to your line of logic.
I've yet to see a real flaw rather than a feature. Its also way, WAAAAAAAAY fewer repercussions than the "-14 and bleeding is ok" crowd.
|
|
I already quoted extensively from the paragraph to show how it is against the no pvp rule. Again.
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.
that is the entire section on no pvp. As I said, nothing you said is mentioned in there.
Whoa whoa whoa.. NO. The rule is not "if you pvp another character your character dies"- Thats just asking to get DM protoplasm or "my character is about to retire" suicide bombers who take out other characters.
That was my part of confusing previous living campaigns I've played. please disregard that part.
I consider that a feature, not a flaw. It prevents the osirion character from having to run into the room and throw themselves bodily over every sarcophagus before smashy can get to it with a hammer.
but wouldn't the osirion player be inhibiting smashy character?
A dominated character under the no pvp rule is fair game. Less belligerent options include grappling, and hitting them with enough subdual damage so they'll PROBABLY live...
not according to the rules I posted above. it's only the dominated player who is exempt.
I think the problem I have with your logic is at certain points it counters itself. "I can't cast spells on other players" + "I can't inhibit their actions" can easily = "no cloud spells in any area that another player is going to want to go." What do you say to the wizard who specializes in battlefield control? sorry, you can't play your character, cause it's pvp?
I think instead of having a rule that says "I can't do anything to your character, regardless of scenario" it's better to have a rule that says "no killing" and have the GM adjudicate things from there. It puts the power back into the GM's hands to adjudicate situations, which as a general rule I'm in favor of.
|
|
that is the entire section on no pvp. As I said, nothing you said is mentioned in there.
Horsefeathers.
No Player-versus-Player Combat. How the hell is bashing someone in the face with a greatsword NOT combat?
Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session<--- how is bashing someone in the face with a greatsword NOT conflict? How is smashing someone's macguffin not conflict?
Until you can answer those questions not only is my interpretation THERE, but your allowance of PVP isn't there.
but wouldn't the osirion player be inhibiting smashy character?
No its the DM doing it. The DM is supposed to be using the (hopefully proverbial) newspaper to the head. That this doesn't result in the death of any character, i think, changes a lot compared to the no pvp rules of other campaigns you may have been in.
not according to the rules I posted above. it's only the dominated player who is exempt.
Note that this does not apply to situations
where your character is mind-controlled by an NPC and isforced by that NPC to attack a fellow Pathfinder.
There is more than one form of mind control. Charm, dominate, possession, confusion...
I think the problem I have with your logic is at certain points it counters itself. "I can't cast spells on other players"
You have a point with your second part but you have nothing here. If the player doesn't want the spell they don't get the spell. There's no conflict there at all.
"I can't inhibit their actions" can easily = "no cloud spells in any area that another player is going to want to go."
Like anything else you have to balance it with the other players. The character has dibs on their space, anything else is probably fair game unless someone's deliberately trying to screw with another player.
What do you say to the wizard who specializes in battlefield control? sorry, you can't play your character, cause it's pvp?
No. I think you're reading in an extreme that isn't there.
|
|
No Player-versus-Player Combat.
I view that as the header of a section, not as the rule. The rule is contained in the paragraph that follows. If you are going to insist that it prevents player-versus-player combat, then as long as two PLAYERS do not engage in combat with one another (their characters are a different matter), the rule is satisfied. A player is one who controls a Player Character; a player is NOT a character. I have yet to see a *player* anywhere engage in combat with another *player*.
Again, everything everyone is talking about here is interpretive, and with respect to you, your comments in response to Vrog are just YOUR interpretations of the rule, just as my comments are MY interpretation of the rule.
Beyond that, everyone is now just talking in circles, I think.
|
|
Horsefeathers.
An excellent rebuttal word. One I like but doesn't get said as much as it should (not being sarcastic or anything here)
No Player-versus-Player Combat. How the hell is bashing someone in the face with a greatsword NOT combat?
because it doesn't meet the "no killing" criteria of the rule; let me use another example: if you read the feats table of any book that has one, and you read the rules summary of the feat on that table, are you going to stop at the table and say "that's how that works! I'm done here" or are you going to go read the body of the feat? I sincerely hope it's the latter. The section of the combat is titled "no player vs. player combat", but the body of the section specifically mentions no killing. it doesn't say "no spellcasting on characters who don't want it"; it doesn't say "don't impede another player character"; it says "no killing."
Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session<--- How is smashing someone's macguffin not conflict?
you're correct, that would be conflict. that would not, however, be combat.
No its the DM doing it. The DM is supposed to be using the (hopefully proverbial) newspaper to the head
what if the osiriani player wants to preserve an artifact that will destroy orphanages. does that make it okay then?
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.
that's correct. Note that it doesn't say "when another player character is mind controlled, it's okay to attack them." it says "when you're mind controlled and forced to attack your allies, the no pvp rule doesn't apply to you because you aren't in control of your actions."
No. I think you're reading in an extreme that isn't there.
but it is, because the "I specialize in casting cloud spells, which I use to control the battlefield by cutting off avenues of attack" wizard and the "I specialize in charging and dealing massive damage to the boss, while overrunning his minions" cavalier characters can come into conflict with each other pretty easily. then who is right? both are impeding the other's ability to play their characters, and both could make a good case for why their opinion is correct. By your interpretation of the rules, to be fair, you would have to say that neither could use their abilities if there were any chance of interacting with the others. By the way that the rules are currently written, they could both do their thing and as long as no one dies, it's all still good. And that's why I'm saying that it's better to use the rules as currently written. it actually is more flexible and allows for more corner cases that come up.
|
|
No Player-versus-Player Combat.I view that as the header of a section, not as the rule. The rule is contained in the paragraph that follows.
Character vs character conflict sours a session is also in that paragraph.
If you are going to insist that it prevents player-versus-player combat, then as long as two PLAYERS do not engage in combat with one another (their characters are a different matter), the rule is satisfied.
I don't think "the players can't commit assault at the table" needed a rule, or is the intent here.
Captain Andor and Manicles the chelaxian come accross an escaped slave. Hillarity insues. If Bob and John both want to to settle this by having their characters non lethally punch each other out there is no player verses player combat.
If Bob decides to have captain andor throw a right hook at Manicles, the players are in fact in conflict with each other. They are acting through the proxy of their characters, but it is the players that are conflicting and fighting with each other. This never goes well.
A player is one who controls a Player Character; a player is NOT a character. I have yet to see a *player* anywhere engage in combat with another *player*.
There were a few games in high school...
more seriously, then why do you think thats what the rule is talking about?
|
|
more seriously, then why do you think thats what the rule is talking about?
Because, like Bob, I think it is supposed to be "Character versus Character" not "player versus player." I don't know that for a fact, but I don't see players ever engaging in combat with one another.
And while you are correct that "character vs. character conflict sours a session" is in that paragraph, it isn't prohibited (unlike voluntarily killing another character.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An excellent rebuttal word. One I like but doesn't get said as much as it should (not being sarcastic or anything here)
This antiquated phrase is brought to you by the "Save Liz courts's valuable time foundation..." :)
The section of the combat is titled "no player vs. player combat", but the body of the section specifically mentions no killing. it doesn't say "no spellcasting on characters who don't want it"; it doesn't say "don't impede another player character"; it says "no killing."
So if a sign reads
NO DOGS ALLOWED
-No poodles
-no Chihuahuas
Are German shepherds ok?
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session<--- How is smashing someone's macguffin not conflict?
you're correct, that would be conflict. that would not, however, be combat.
1) But it is combat. You would have to determine surprise, roll initiative, go into initiative, possibly have smashy make a CMB check against Doctor Jones...
2) Even if its not combat the paragraph says, in the body, conflict is bad, so it doesn't matter if its conflict or combat its out.
3) Even if its not technically combat its the clearest violation of rule zero. Does it really matter WHY I need to smack a player over the head with the proverbial newspaper?
what if the osiriani player wants to preserve an artifact that will destroy orphanages. does that make it okay then?
We're pathfinders! Thats doing the two things we do best at the same time. Double prestige points!
that's correct. Note that it doesn't say "when another player character is mind controlled, it's okay to attack them." it says "when you're mind controlled and forced to attack your allies, the no pvp rule doesn't apply to you because you aren't in control of your actions."
ok, THATS an important disctinction.
but it is, because the "I specialize in casting cloud spells,
You're loosely interpreting my interpretation of a short paragraph that's kinda loosely built to begin with. You could easily argue that if you're not standing in it you're not impeded.
The short answer is thats the sort of thing the dm has to work out depending on the circumstances.
|
I have actually seen an LG game end in assult charges by one player versus another player. Yep, knock over chairs and throw a punch, and several of us beefy bystanders intervened. CON security called Hotel Security called the Denver PD.
I never want to see that happen again. Ever.
...wait, is this the incident that Compton decided to actually ban the person from PFS?
|
|
3) Even if its not technically combat its the clearest violation of rule zero. Does it really matter WHY I need to smack a player over the head with the proverbial newspaper?
but what's the rule zero here? the body of the text specifically spells out no killing. nowhere does it say "no attacking" or "no casting spells" or "no playing builds I don't like". It would seem to me that the rule zero is "don't kill other PCs". it even says at one point "in short, don't kill other PCs".
We're pathfinders! Thats doing the two things we do best at the same time. Double prestige points!
I know, right!
ok, THATS an important disctinction.
ya, I noticed that because of this discussion. So who says you can't learn something new from the internet?
I gotta admit, it's nice that there's been no name calling here, nor none of the "uh huh/nuh uh" that you usually get in forum debates.
|
|
but what's the rule zero here?
Don't be a jerk.
the body of the text specifically spells out no killing.
Just because it says "no killing" doesn't mean it doesn't also say other things. It ALSO says player vs player conflict ruins the game... and I don't think i need to go to far out on a limb to think he's not talking about the players solving it in the parking lot with metal dice.
nowhere does it say "no attacking" or "no casting spells" or "no playing builds I don't like". It would seem to me that the rule zero is "don't kill other PCs". it even says at one point "in short, don't kill other PCs".
And look how people have interpreted that. "Oh, -13 and bleeding is just fine, i didn't technically kill you.. your own heart did that when it pumped out too much blood.. "
Is that going to fulfill the INTENT of the paragraph? Will -13 and bleeding, blinding, cursing, or polymorphing prevent any more ill will between players than letting them kill other characters?
|
|
...wait, is this the incident that Compton decided to actually ban the person from PFS?I have actually seen an LG game end in assult charges by one player versus another player. Yep, knock over chairs and throw a punch, and several of us beefy bystanders intervened. CON security called Hotel Security called the Denver PD.
I never want to see that happen again. Ever.
1. No, He is talking about a game of Living Greyhawk. Not the same game.
2. I could be wrong, but I dont think John can actually ban people from the campaign. Im sure he could highly suggest it to Mike, who would likely listen, though.Plus, banning only goes so far as to keep someone from playing an account known to belong to them, and only if the people where the person is refuse to allow the person to play.
|
|
Lets look at it line by line:
The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to provide an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible.
Statement of a goal. Or why the rule is here. Nothing telling us what we can or can't do.
Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session.
Statement of a fact. Still no "rule" yet. This line might imply (weakly) that conflict is prohibited, but it does not explicitly say that. Personally, I just don't see it.
While killing another character might seem like fun to you, it certainly won’t be for the other character’s player.
Another statement of fact. We're getting closer to a rule, but still nothing saying exactly what we can and cannot do yet.
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.
OK, finally we are being told something we can't do. No "killing another PC."
In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever.
Basically repeating the previous line in no uncertain terms.
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.
And just so someone doesn't point to this rule to say their dominated PC is not allowed to kill another PC because the PFS Guide says so, we have this exception.
I just don't see this rule saying more than, "don't voluntarily kill other PCs."
|
|
...wait, is this the incident that Compton decided to actually ban the person from PFS?I have actually seen an LG game end in assult charges by one player versus another player. Yep, knock over chairs and throw a punch, and several of us beefy bystanders intervened. CON security called Hotel Security called the Denver PD.
I never want to see that happen again. Ever.
1. No, He is talking about a game of Living Greyhawk. Not the same game.
2. I could be wrong, but I dont think John can actually ban people from the campaign. Im sure he could highly suggest it to Mike, who would likely listen, though.Plus, banning only goes so far as to keep someone from playing an account known to belong to them, and only if the people where the person is refuse to allow the person to play.
Ah, that was that LG means. I thought it was a argument about Paladins that escalated quickly.
But I did hear from either my store coordinator or my VC that there was an actual ban somewhere.
In typical battle in my group, the tank will gather lot of enemies and hold them around himself, blasters nuke him with the enemies and healer make him better before another turn.
So, now you are saying that we aren't allowed to do that?
|
|
In typical battle in my group, the tank will gather lot of enemies and hold them around himself, blasters nuke him with the enemies and healer make him better before another turn.
So, now you are saying that we aren't allowed to do that?
Many of us are saying that you can only do that if the player of the tank agrees to it.
I don't think anybody has any problems as long as the player agrees
|
|
to be fair, I'm not creating my own house rules. I'm going off what is currently available. Nor am I saying that RAW is the way, all the time. And I think that this could be a good forum for change/clarification regarding what is and isn't considered PVP. I'm fine with being nuked by party members, disarmed, tripped, and choked into unconsciousness if I'm dominated, and having someone punch me in an antimagic shell to prevent bad shenanigans.
