PVP Question


Pathfinder Society

Grand Lodge

Kinda saw this touched on in another thread, but how far does the PVP rule go? Killing another PC is obviously forbidden, but can a player use intimidate or diplomacy on another player? If a character is doing something to screw over the rest of the party, is it legal to grapple them or cast Sanctity or Create Pit or something along those lines? I guess more plainly, if someone is breaking the "don't be a jerk" rule in a scenario, is there a way that a player can intervene and take a little heat off the GM?

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Erm... I'd go off what has been hashed out in the other threads like this. Threads like this tend to turn nasty.

If a player is violating the "don't be a jerk" rule, the GM should take the responsibility into his or her own hands to do something about it, and not rely on other players to do it for them.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Kenny Stewart wrote:
Kinda saw this touched on in another thread, but how far does the PVP rule go? Killing another PC is obviously forbidden, but can a player use intimidate or diplomacy on another player?

Without touching on any of the rest of it, Intimidate and Diplomacy never work on PCs. That's a Pathfinder rule, not a PFS rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Erm... I'd go off what has been hashed out in the other threads like this. Threads like this tend to turn nasty.

If a player is violating the "don't be a jerk" rule, the GM should take the responsibility into his or her own hands to do something about it, and not rely on other players to do it for them.

Very much this, if the player is being Jerkish the other players can (IC) talk to him ask him to stop etc.

If the behaviour continues and is disruptive it is (IMO) completely the GMs responsibility to enforce the Don't-Be-A-Jerk rule. I know a lot of people dont like to be the authoritarian bad guy, but sometimes you need to.

EDIT: Also any PVP even if its to alleviate the dont be a jerk rule can be a slippery slope.

Shadow Lodge

pH unbalanced wrote:
Kenny Stewart wrote:
Kinda saw this touched on in another thread, but how far does the PVP rule go? Killing another PC is obviously forbidden, but can a player use intimidate or diplomacy on another player?
Without touching on any of the rest of it, Intimidate and Diplomacy never work on PCs. That's a Pathfinder rule, not a PFS rule.

Not entirely, Intimidate can be used to demoralize PCs.

The Exchange 5/5

this has been hashed out in many other threads...

If the player does something objectionable - I'll tell him (the player), I don't punish his PC. If I don't like the way he is playing (because he's being a jerk in one of the many ways)... I am not going to punish him by doing something in game to his PC, when the problem is the PLAYER.

This would be like kicking a guys dog, 'cause he stole my parking spot. And it punishes the other players at my table. You know, the ones there to have fun? Address the root of the problem quickly and get on with the game... otherwise we will be getting griefers who do it BACAUSE they can mess up (add penilities to) the other players at the table.

Point out that he's being a jerk - in a "nice" way, after all, maybe he doesn't realize that not bathing for a week in July is an issue ... fix the player, not the PC...

"My PC is gonna smack your PC 'cause you keep being a jerk...."
"My Fictional Person is gonna smack your Fictional Person 'cause you had onions with your lunch, and keep breathing on me!..."

Dark Archive 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Minnesota—Minneapolis aka Silbeg

pH unbalanced wrote:
Without touching on any of the rest of it, Intimidate and Diplomacy never work on PCs. That's a Pathfinder rule, not a PFS rule.

I've heard people claim this before; however, I cannot find a rules reference. I'd honestly appreciate it if someone could quote the rules reference (either with a link from the PRD, or the page reference in the CRB).

Thank you.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Diplomacy wrote:
Check: You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check.

Sovereign Court 5/5 ⦵⦵

Silbeg wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Without touching on any of the rest of it, Intimidate and Diplomacy never work on PCs. That's a Pathfinder rule, not a PFS rule.

I've heard people claim this before; however, I cannot find a rules reference. I'd honestly appreciate it if someone could quote the rules reference (either with a link from the PRD, or the page reference in the CRB).

Thank you.

It's in the Diplomacy section of the CRB.

Core Rulebook, page 93 wrote:

You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer

characters with a successful check.

By dint of not being nonplayer characters, PCs can't be affected by that particular use of Diplomacy. Intimidate does, however, lack that language.

EDIT: ninja'd

Dark Archive 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Minnesota—Minneapolis aka Silbeg

Illeist wrote:
Silbeg wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Without touching on any of the rest of it, Intimidate and Diplomacy never work on PCs. That's a Pathfinder rule, not a PFS rule.

I've heard people claim this before; however, I cannot find a rules reference. I'd honestly appreciate it if someone could quote the rules reference (either with a link from the PRD, or the page reference in the CRB).

Thank you.

It's in the Diplomacy section of the CRB.
Core Rulebook, page 93 wrote:

You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer

characters with a successful check.
By dint of not being nonplayer characters, PCs can't be affected by that particular use of Diplomacy. Intimidate does, however, lack that language.

Thank you.

Shadow Lodge

Back to the matter of a player using PVP to enforce the "don't be a jerk" rule.

First of all, initiating PVP with a jerk player is a jerk move and would violate the "don't be a jerk" rule. Secondly, it is the GM's job to enforce the rules, not a players. If you feel that another player is being a jerk, take it up with the GM, because if you decide "well since player X is being a jerk, I'm going to be a bigger jerk back to them" then remember this, it is often the person who retaliates who gets in bigger trouble.

Sovereign Court

Dylos wrote:
First of all, initiating PVP with a jerk player is a jerk move and would violate the "don't be a jerk" rule.

To play devil's advocate (or Charon's :P) wouldn't that be self-defense jerking as the initial jerk's jerking might result in negatively impact the whole group?

Grand Lodge

I looked at the CRB and saw the bit for Diplomacy, but couldn't find anything for Intimidate, as someone else has already pointed out.

I get that the DM should be the one handing out justice and such, and as a DM in my own game I understand that totally fine. Just making sure I don't overstep any bounds, even with jerks. ;)


The PVP rule is an extention of the don;t be a jerk rule.

I bicker with other PCs all the time. I often use bluff against other PCs. This I do in a manner to be funny and not cause conflict. If my gnome find out information I add in parts that suppose the superiority of gnomes. My pesh addict lies all the time, infact I start almost every session hitting up NPCs and PCs for gold for his sick grandmother.

The idea is at the end of the game did the PCs have fun at someone elses expense for it? The DM should stop any jerk behavior, if a PC feels he needs to resort to that kind of behavior back the DM is not doing their job.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Is asking to leave a table, because of a jerk player who has ignored warnings, considered "jerk behavior"?

Shadow Lodge

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Dylos wrote:
First of all, initiating PVP with a jerk player is a jerk move and would violate the "don't be a jerk" rule.
To play devil's advocate (or Charon's :P) wouldn't that be self-defense jerking as the initial jerk's jerking might result in negatively impact the whole group?

A great man once said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Think about it this way, if Player A is being a jerk, and Player B decides that he will fix the issue himself rather then go to the GM with his concerns and disables Player A's character. Many different things could happen here, including but not limited to a physical confrontation from Player A, an in character confrontation from a third player who is friends with Player A, or even the GM deciding that Player B has become evil and is removed from the campaign.

The thing is, the other players, and the GM may not feel that Player A is being a jerk, and you don't want to take the possibility of making yourself out to be the villain. If you don't like the way that the GM handles the jerk player, after the game is up you can take it up with the store, organizer, or someone else as well, but remember as I said before, the one who retaliates is often the one noticed.

Shadow Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Is asking to leave a table, because of a jerk player who has ignored warnings, considered "jerk behavior"?

Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but if anyone asks a player to leave, it should be the GM.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Dylos wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Is asking to leave a table, because of a jerk player who has ignored warnings, considered "jerk behavior"?
Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but if anyone asks a player to leave, it should be the GM.

Not the player, but excusing oneself.

Shadow Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Dylos wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Is asking to leave a table, because of a jerk player who has ignored warnings, considered "jerk behavior"?
Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but if anyone asks a player to leave, it should be the GM.
Not the player, but excusing oneself.

Depends on how you leave, if you are an adult about it and excuse yourself in a non-jerk manner, I would not consider it jerk behavior, but YMMV.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Dylos wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Dylos wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Is asking to leave a table, because of a jerk player who has ignored warnings, considered "jerk behavior"?
Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but if anyone asks a player to leave, it should be the GM.
Not the player, but excusing oneself.
Depends on how you leave, if you are an adult about it and excuse yourself in a non-jerk manner, I would not consider it jerk behavior, but YMMV.

Well, politely, of course.


The time I left the table I was ignored for about an hour. 20 minutes in I gave a 3 minute speech while one loud player demanded the DMs sole attention. My oration was on why my half of the table was ignored, ironically was ignored. So I annoucned loudly that my character was staying near the start of the area. 10 minutes after that I took out a book turned my back to a DM and started reading to make a point. Then I heard them deciding if my character was in the line of the trap. So I decided to leave before they killed my character without me getting to play it.

I just started gathering my things and walked out. I was pretty furious. My friend that was there will never go to a public game again to avoid those types of players, and I will never play with that player again(The DM I made up with).

If you are abused at a table enough to get up and leave. Well it is very hard to leave politely. I was extremely furious considering I paid to play at that game, and it was with very experienced people that should know better.

Silver Crusade

You can certainly role-play how much you dislike the other person's actions, as long as you don't end up becoming too disruptive yourself in the process. Trying to control another character's actions, verbal or otherwise, becomes a struggle in and of itself, because they will try to do the same to your character.

Chances are, if the player is being a jerk at the table on more than one occasion -- they are most likely the same way at other open event tables. GMs are like anyone else, they have tolerance levels of how much disruption they are willing to tolerate at a session. Some GMs are more direct and confrontational than others. Pulling people aside in the middle of a session causes overt drama and spoils the mood. Mostly GMs are trying to move the scenario along and hopefully allow everyone to have a good time.

As a player, talking to the GM afterwards in private can help during the next session. Sometimes, the GM may be thinking they are being overtly sensitive to the situation after a long day at work, etc. -- so they might decide to not do anything. Your input to a GM helps tremendously.

You can always contact the Venture Captain or Lieutenant as well to vent your frustrations about a particular player, but its a courtesy at least give the GM a chance to resolve the situation first for next session. Chances are, both GM and VC/L already know there are issues present.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I tend to define PVP as anything that would break invisibility and invisibility's loopholes.

Also if you lick it its yours.


All I know about PvP is that if a PC uses Intimidate to demoralize me, and the GM permits it, I leave the table.


izzutan wrote:
All I know about PvP is that if a PC uses Intimidate to demoralize me, and the GM permits it, I leave the table.

Failing to include some on in haste, bless, teleport, communual resist energy or any number of buff spells does not break invisibility.

Sovereign Court

Dylos wrote:
A great man once said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Or makes everyone into pirates with that awesome eyepatch look! (the world itself doesn't have eyes to begin with)

And of note - in the original context - an eye for an eye is in reference to governmental justice (or in our context - GM justice :P).

Silver Crusade 5/5

izzutan wrote:
All I know about PvP is that if a PC uses Intimidate to demoralize me, and the GM permits it, I leave the table.

Up here our basic PVP rule is that PC vs PC activity can occur if both players are happy with it.

So, I've seen a PC intimidate another PC. But both players were quite enjoying it and it made perfect sense.

Silver Crusade

pauljathome wrote:
izzutan wrote:
All I know about PvP is that if a PC uses Intimidate to demoralize me, and the GM permits it, I leave the table.

Up here our basic PVP rule is that PC vs PC activity can occur if both players are happy with it.

So, I've seen a PC intimidate another PC. But both players were quite enjoying it and it made perfect sense.

In some of the earlier seasons, there were faction missions that required keeping things hidden from PCs of other factions. PvP Sleight of hand vs perception came up a few times.

Also, I've seen charmed/dominated PCs fight against the rest of the group several times. Succubi seem to be particular good at causing that, for some reason...

3/5

Here's what I'll say -

The Barbarian was violating Don't bully / don't be a jerk:

Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play wrote:


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

Bolding mine. The Barbarian was trying to sabotage the mission, ie the mission the other players were trying to accomplish. The GM should have stopped the PC.

However, GMs don't always do their duty on this front because they don't want to cause conflict. A lot of people avoid conflict. I believe as a community member, and also as a player whose RP experience and mission are at stake, if the GM abdicates their duties to marshall jerk players, I take it as my right and responsibility to handle it myself.

Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play wrote:


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.

I'm not allowed to kill. Doesn't stop me from pummeling the barbarian unconscious, or pinning them. Or color spraying them. Or glitter dusting them. Or whatever it takes short of killing them.

That said, I've never invoked those rights / duties, and I hope never to have to.


@ The Fourth Horseman

I personally think you are taking too much upon yourself. I don't believe it is either your right or duty to take such PVP actions to stop jerk behaviour. If I was playing and one player took it upon themselves to curtail the behaviour of another through pummelling etc then I would be unimpressed, as I can just imagine how easily that would spiral to out of character fighting. I believe the most you should ever do (as a player) is talk in character to the other guy/gal. Beyond that bring it up to the GM and let them arbitrate things. Hell for all you know you are misreading things and you starting to pummel someone could mean the table sees YOU as a jerk.

Though all of the above is simply my opinion.

Edit; This btw only relates to PFS, in a home game go wild ;)

3/5

CathalFM wrote:

@ The Fourth Horseman

I personally think you are taking too much upon yourself. I don't believe it is either your right or duty to take such PVP actions to stop jerk behaviour. If I was playing and one player took it upon themselves to curtail the behaviour of another through pummelling etc then I would be unimpressed, as I can just imagine how easily that would spiral to out of character fighting. I believe the most you should ever do (as a player) is talk in character to the other guy/gal. Beyond that bring it up to the GM and let them arbitrate things. Hell for all you know you are misreading things and you starting to pummel someone could mean the table sees YOU as a jerk.

Though all of the above is simply my opinion.

Edit; This btw only relates to PFS, in a home game go wild ;)

I'd like to clarify. Since I was trying to relate my philosophy back the the OPs situation, the assumption is that the players have spoken to the jerk player ooc already, but to no avail, and the GM refuses to take any firm actions to fix the problem.

I'm not sure that this is what you were implying, so forgive me if not, but if your underlying point is that should the GM do nothing in a bad situation, I should just sit back and let a jerk player ruin the game, I disagree wholeheartedly.

Like I said though, I've never had to use the nuclear option, and I really hope I never have to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No my apologies, I mistakenly assumed that you meant this would be your first action if the GM didn't act.

But if the players voiced concern and the gm just can't do anything (fear of confrontation etc) then I definitely understand where you're coming from.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

@The Fourth Horseman & @CathalFM

That has to be the most genteel internet fight I've ever witnessed. :P

Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

Dylos wrote:

Think about it this way, if Player A is being a jerk, and Player B decides that he will fix the issue himself rather then go to the GM with his concerns and disables Player A's character. Many different things could happen here, including but not limited to a physical confrontation from Player A, an in character confrontation from a third player who is friends with Player A, or even the GM deciding that Player B has become evil and is removed from the campaign.

The thing is, the other players, and the GM may not feel that Player A is being a jerk, and you don't want to take the possibility of making yourself out to be the villain. If you don't like the way that the GM handles the jerk player, after the game is up you can take it up with the store, organizer, or someone else as well, but remember as I said before, the one who retaliates is often the one noticed.

I have faced this exact situation.

I was GMing a game in another city. One of the players had a reputation of causing trouble for the party, e.g., going off by himself and getting caught by the bad guys or the local authorities, playing with unknown magic items and blowing up the party, trying to pick fights with venture captains/faction leaders, trying to kill an NPC the party was supposed to protect, etc. He was apparently responsible for several character deaths and caused the party to fail the mission on multiple occasions.

Yes, the kid was a very difficult player and needed a lot of GM attention/intervention, but as an out of towner, I hadn't seen any of the previous problems. All I saw was everyone else at the table watching this kid like jailers, "vetoing" everything he wanted to do or saying, "You will NOT do that--I won't let you." The other players were actually threatening PVP based on previous experience ("Oh, crap, he's leaving the party--he's going to get us killed again!"), but to me, all he was doing was going off by himself.

I hadn't seen any behavior from the kid that warranted this kind of response, and I was on the verge of having to punish the other players based on what I saw at the table. Fortunately, we managed to get things under control and finish the game, but it was an eye-opening experience.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

@The Fourth Horseman & @CathalFM

That has to be the most genteel internet fight I've ever witnessed. :P

Oh, You think you can come waltzing in here with your awesome forum name and just sling accusations like that around? Well you can sir, because you are completely entitled to your opinion.

;)

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / PVP Question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.