|
You can't consent to being killed under RAW. Nor does RAW say anything about attacks that cause a risk of death. For example, I toss a 10d6 fireball into an area that includes a fellow PC 1 hp away from death. That's killing. What if I throw a 10d6 fireball into an area that contains a PC 59 hp away from death? RAW says I can't voluntarily kill, but what does "voluntarily" mean?
That's sort of the issue here and the reasoning behind the GMs mindset. Or maybe because he's moving to D.C. soon and wanted some parting kills before leaving, hence why he ran Bonekeep.
Either way, just judging from the responses, this issue clearly needs to be better defined in the next revision of the PFSOPG.
|
The no-PvP section of the Guide has been pretty much the same for years, but the prevailing interpretation on the boards has always been that given the permission of the target, it is perfectly fine to harm them (usually with collateral damage from AoE). Yet while the text in the Guide has been made less ambiguous in many other parts, the part on PvP remains vague - in particular, it only mentions killing other PCs rather than merely harming them.
For those advocating the strict interpretation of no PvP damage, ever, even with permission, consider that given the above, the only point in the current text that supports that interpretation is the section title - "No Player-versus-Player Combat" - and if you have the other player's permission, it's not really combat, is it? Also note that the last sentence of the section is written such that it implies that while mind-controlled PCs may attack other PC's, the other PCs may not harm the mind-controlled PC.
This issue comes up regularly on the boards. So yes, this is, and has been for a long while, in need of treatment in an FAQ or the Guide.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The header "No Player Versus Player Combat" is a header. The actual rule itself is contained below. If that header were the rule itself, there would be no need to state the rule differently below the header. Because it does, the actual rule is limited to not voluntarily killing other player characters.
That's a pretty big opening through which to drive a truck of PC vs PC options. For example, is Bull rushing another PC to move them out of the way for another PC to get positioning a violation of this rule?
Not by the text of the rule in the guide, and yet everyone here would consider that combat. If I have a PC standing in the way, for example, to the extent that (s)he has become a hindrance to the party (making it harder for other PCs to hit the bad guy or whatever), and all reasonable attempts to get that character to move have failed, you'd best believe I'm going to try and move him.
Yet, some here say, "but there is no Player versus Player combat." Well, that's not what the rule text says, and I am reasonably sure there is probably a reason for that - as stated elsewhere, the campaign leadership can't possibly conceive of every situation where this rule could apply, so they provide the largest, vaguest terminology, and then let Table GMs sort it out.
The larger rule at play here is the "don't be a jerk rule."
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, I would concur with the GM assigning an alignment to the victim PC in this instance.
We don't want a player deliberately leaving things like "alignment" blank, and then deciding, at the crucial moment, which alignment gives him the greatest advantage. (And, heck, given the enemies casting spells, "neutral" is a much more strategic choice than "good".)
Even better would be, when the GM reviews the character sheets at the beginning of the session, noticing this absence and asking the player before the game starts. (This is why we audit PCs.)
|
On the alignment issue, I would have simply instructed the player to select an alignment immediately. If they chose to be "cheesy" about it, then that is really just on them, as it doesn't affect my fun running the game whatsoever. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that more than likely, it was just a completely accidental oversight anyhow.
On the matter of PvP, it's a very simple affair at my tables:
1). No PC may willfully choose to negatively effect another PC without consent from the player who's PC may be negatively affected. The only exception to this is when a PC might become dominated or similar.
2). If a player consents to their PC being effected by a fellow PC's ability, then rolls bad or otherwise fails and something awful happens, the result stands. I would also make certain to the caution any player who appeared to be consenting to something that would likely be very bad for them, just so they would know what they might be getting into.
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have had several cases where people consented to being subjected to Burning Hands. Something to do with swarms in confined spaces and no other means to get the little buggers.
But that was always after asking and telling the players the consequences.
Letting the holy smite just kill the guy without letting both players know beforehand that this might be a very real possibility, and letting them then decide accordingly is kind of a jerk move.
|
That's sort of the issue here and the reasoning behind the GMs mindset. Or maybe because he's moving to D.C. soon and wanted some parting kills before leaving, hence why he ran Bonekeep.
My question stands. Assuming for the sake of arguement (and I know we cannot know based only off this incident) that the GM is one of those little trolls who enjoys "parting kills" and rules in ways to hurt others and boost his ego, what is he doing as a VO? Basically does he habitually violates the don't be a jerk rule for ego and self gratification?
I could see several ways as a gm that could have people leave the table smiling, even if a pc died, rather than engender bad feelings. If I had nothing to go on, I might have had the guy role a dice with even/odd for good or neutral, with a warning to fix that alignment issue. Something like that leaves the player feeling like they were treated fairly even if they made a stupid mistake like not filling out the alignment line.
Either way, just judging from the responses, this issue clearly needs to be better defined in the next revision of the PFSOPG.
I don't think so. About 95% are advocating common sense interpretations even if I disagree with some of them, they are ones I could live with at a table I played on. This GM may or may not be one of them.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The word "versus" does not mean that any act with a negative component may not be performed by one player on another player character. If the effected charcater is happy that there is an over riding beneficial aspect and consents: then let the dice fall where they may.
"Versus" to my mind means doing something against the consent and subjective best interest of the target character.
Consent comes in two basic favours Explicit & Implied.
Explicit consent is easy and needs no further space here.
There is a problem with implied consent: how can you establish it? and will players give into temptation and dishonestly deny giving it after the fact? So I always prefer to get explicit consent before I take any such action.
If we're relying on implicit consent....
What the GM had to do here was determine if in fact the Ranger had implictly consented and if he had why. If he'd allowed it to happen because he thought his alignment would protect him then give the player the benefit of the doubt. If he gave implied because he thought he was tough enough to handle it regardles of alignment then that is his bad luck and judgement.
If he really didn't know what was happening then there was no consent & it comes under PvP though I wish it did not.
I prefer to operate an honour system e.g. if a player claims a day job role that is normally only avaliable for someone with a vanity, I don't insist on seeing it. If they say they are LG I don't insist on seeing the charcter sheet. Essentially I assume the player is being honest unless they have already shown themselves suspect.
|
I have had several cases where people consented to being subjected to Burning Hands. Something to do with swarms in confined spaces and no other means to get the little buggers.
I will admit - I have color sprayed an ally before. But it was in the dark - and I ended up hitting every one of our foes who had ambushed said ally. (Everyone failed their will saves and was knocked out - so it was all good.)
|
|
Hey, many a person has suddenly found religion when there's a fireball coming at their heads. A good alignment wouldn't be any different :)
I had almost the exact thought when I first read the situation.
Me-as-GM: "Ok, so you forgot to assign your alignment. What would you want it to be?"
Ranger: "Uh.. Neutral Good?"
Me-as-GM: "Praise Sarenrae, it's a miracle. Make sure to write it down on your Character Sheet."
(Again, I can't fault the GM for their ruling on the alignment, though. That's a valid call to make especially under the time constraints. Allowing the Holy Smite to affect the fallen Ranger is more of an issue.)
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interestingly enough, I almost had something similar happen when I played Bonekeep 1.
So my gunslinger/paladin knew that his actions were likely to result in the death of a party member. However, the DM made no ruling against me and no one complained. But what do you think the DM should have done?
|
|
Interestingly enough, I almost had something similar happen when I played Bonekeep 1.
** spoiler omitted **
Yes - but you weren't the one damaging the barbarian directly. You were damaging the skeletons who were in turn damaging the barbarian.
If that weren't allowed, neither would starting a fight with anything who you could theoretically get past without a fight. After all - they might potentially kill a teammate.
|
|
Interesting example, trollbill. Yet another case that illustrates it's possible to be in a situation of damned if you do, and damned if you don't... if that GM doesn't use a lens of reasonableness and his reading of the PvP rule is "Never, Ever... Not Even Hardly Ever".
TOZ's links upthread clearly show Mike Brock's support for PFS GMs applying said lens of reasonableness and being allowed to decide for themselves under what circumstances pathfinder PCs are allowed to "harm" each other... either through direct consequence like trollbill's example, unintended (on the part of the casting PC) consequence like the example in the OP, or by passive-aggressive PvP by deciding to stand back and watch the party get killed rather than helping in a fight the rogue's player thinks the party shouldn't have started. (in TOZ's linked example)
|
|
Another flaw, I hope to prove fatal, to the argument of no "intentional PvP" meaning no harm to any PC ever:
If one cannot even subject a PC to the possibility of harm, say via failed reflex save by being inside an AoE, what allows you to subject YOUR OWN character to the possibility of harm? You might fall and take damage if you try to climb the wall. By the same (imo, unreasonable) reading of no "intentional PvP" equating to "no PC harm by players' hands", you can't even take the daily risks inherent in adventuring.
|
|
Reductio ad absurdum much?
Obviously, I would say not. Given things said upthread that are assumedly sincerely held beliefs by only a couple individuals (with multiple aliases ;) :
You can't throw a harmful area effect on a fellow player.
And nowhere in the chapter is anything about "you can do it, if the other player consents/does not protest". And please don't start about "accidents". That is a can of worms i'd rather not open. Because then you get all kinds of " I accidently included the guy i don't like in my fireball ".
If those views were correct, then I'm just pointing out the Unintended Consequences of that rule that proponents of that view apparently haven't considered. Luckily for the rest of us, Mike Brock definitively does not agree with them, as TOZ helpfully pointed out.
|
|
Also, what you do to your PC is an entirely different category from what you do to someone ELSES pc.
Alright, so the rogue wants to climb a wall. If I don't stop him from exposing himself to the risk of falling, it's the same thing as exposing him to that risk myself. So goes the argument, at least.
Obviously it's ridiculous, and that's my point.
|
|
I personally don't see how a clause that talks about "intentional PvP" in any way protects from carelessly or mistakenly placed AE effects. If an effect's primary target is an opponent, I see no reason that it does't go off. Secondary targets don't trigger the "intentional PvP" as far as I can tell. At least not in a RAW manner, as intent is impossible to prove, so I'd say go off the primary target.
|
|
Also, what you do to your PC is an entirely different category from what you do to someone ELSES pc.
Alright, so the rogue wants to climb a wall. If I don't stop him from exposing himself to the risk of falling, it's the same thing as exposing him to that risk myself. So goes the argument, at least.
Obviously it's ridiculous, and that's my point.
The gunslinger and bloodrager ran away from the collapsing warehouse while the rest of the party was fighting the BBEG in it. If they had been in there fighting the beast they could have killed it and gotten the rest of the party out before it fell on them and killed the cleric.
That wasn't PVP, it was just poor choices.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, what you do to your PC is an entirely different category from what you do to someone ELSES pc.
Alright, so the rogue wants to climb a wall. If I don't stop him from exposing himself to the risk of falling, it's the same thing as exposing him to that risk myself. So goes the argument, at least.
Obviously it's ridiculous, and that's my point.
I can put MY rogue on a wall, but i cannot put someone ELSES rogue on the wall via telekinetic charge if they don't want me to.
What PVP ultimately comes down to is player choice. People get to play their character, and you don't get to decide that they should be on a wall, off a wall, or take x amount of damage just because you can.
Equating Me putting my character and Someone else putting that same character in the same situation is a semantic trick, not an argument, not a point, and certainly not an end to the no pvp means no pvp crowd.
|
|
Also, what you do to your PC is an entirely different category from what you do to someone ELSES pc.
Alright, so the rogue wants to climb a wall. If I don't stop him from exposing himself to the risk of falling, it's the same thing as exposing him to that risk myself. So goes the argument, at least.
Obviously it's ridiculous, and that's my point.
I can put MY rogue on a wall, but i cannot put someone ELSES rogue on the wall via telekinetic charge if they don't want me to.
What PVP ultimately comes down to is player choice. People get to play their character, and you don't get to decide that they should be on a wall, off a wall, or take x amount of damage just because you can.
Equating Me putting my character and Someone else putting that same character in the same situation is a semantic trick, not an argument, not a point, and certainly not an end to the no pvp means no pvp crowd.
You and I appear to agree on the basic tenet that Players may not harm another's character without that other player's permission, and what constitutes harm is decided primarily by the "harmed" PC's player, and enforced by the GM.
I'm not saying how silly that is.. I agree with it. I'm saying how silly the view is that players may not harm (under any definition the GM chooses to use) each other's PCs, even if they voice permission for it.
|
|
I personally don't see how a clause that talks about "intentional PvP" in anyway protects from carelessly or mistakenly placed AE effects. If an effect's primary target is an opponent, I see no reason that it does't go off. Secondary targets don't trigger the "intentional PvP" as far as I can tell. At least not in a RAW manner.There is a difference between the guy who has just started playing a Wizard, using an AOE and someone like me, who has been using them for years. All it takes is the question -
"you know you're hitting your friends too, right?"
if he then says...
"what? no, I wanted to place it so it missed them..."
does the judge just say
"to bad newbie - guess you got to learn your AOEs better don't you?"?
It depends on how many choices there were to safely place the AE. If there is only one possible square out of many, it's not unreasonable to say the caster was just a bit off. If there's half a room to choose from, I'll let them have it for nothing. Hanging out with someone who slings fireballs should be at least a little hazardous if you are not careful.
|
|
Reductio ad absurdum much?Another flaw, I hope to prove fatal, to the argument of no "intentional PvP" meaning no harm to any PC ever:
If one cannot even subject a PC to the possibility of harm, say via failed reflex save by being inside an AoE, what allows you to subject YOUR OWN character to the possibility of harm? You might fall and take damage if you try to climb the wall. By the same (imo, unreasonable) reading of no "intentional PvP" equating to "no PC harm by players' hands", you can't even take the daily risks inherent in adventuring.
Since we're going hipster, I rebut with this.
If you don't get it, consider the implications of what "no harm via PvP EVER" means when you consider that includes action AND inaction.
|
|
I agree with just assigning this player a true neutral alignment. It's a simple, safe alignment to go to. Makes the decision easier at a clutch time like this. Especially because this scenario has an absolute time limit of 5 hours. The table does not have time to waste on something like that. If it was a different scenario, I might have explored different options. That could have been avoided by diligence by the player, but at the same time we shouldn't fault the player too much for making a simple clerical error. It's unfortunate that it was an alignment based spell.
I absolutely think the GM should have warned you that you were going to hit your dying party member with the spell, made sure it was cool with the ranger, and given you a chance to do something different. That's really an important warning there because the consequences are non-trivial.
FWIW, Bonekeep is supposed to be a very difficult scenario, and GMs are encouraged in the description of the adventure to not hold back. This may have motivated this GM to be a stickler about your, well, careless (too strong of a word to describe my opinion of the tactic you chose, but I can't think of a more appropriate alternative) choice of an AOE.
It's a bummer, but I'm of the opinion that it's a series of simple mistakes discovered in the wrong scenario.
EDIT:
In general, if someone wants to use an AOE that's going to hit/kill someone, and all parties involved understand fully the risks of that action, they decide it's the best tactical option, and that is more beneficial to the success of the mission than doing something else, then I don't see how it's good for me to tell them to do something else. It would really suck if the tactic change results in the rest of the party dying anyway. </runon>
EDIT 2:
I also want to mention that I think it's a little unfair to try and paint the GM as being malicious for no reason. You guys were playing a scenario designed and advertised to be hard, and that has experienced players in mind. Honestly, you guys did make a couple of rookie mistakes.
He should have still warned you nonetheless.
|
|
The view is not silly given a strict raw reading of the guide.
In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another
character—ever
2 Things
Note "another". You can use your character to kill your character any time you want.
There's no stipulation for the other character letting you do it.
|
|
Reductio ad absurdum much?Another flaw, I hope to prove fatal, to the argument of no "intentional PvP" meaning no harm to any PC ever:
If one cannot even subject a PC to the possibility of harm, say via failed reflex save by being inside an AoE, what allows you to subject YOUR OWN character to the possibility of harm? You might fall and take damage if you try to climb the wall. By the same (imo, unreasonable) reading of no "intentional PvP" equating to "no PC harm by players' hands", you can't even take the daily risks inherent in adventuring.
Since we're going hipster, I rebut with this.
If you don't get it, consider the implications of what "no harm via PvP EVER" means when you consider that includes action AND inaction.
There's nothing to stop a cleric from selecting out PCs they don't like from channels in the middle of a fight. At least, not mechanically.
|
|
There's nothing to stop a cleric from selecting out PCs they don't like from channels in the middle of a fight. At least, not mechanically.
And in that, yes, I would completely agree. What I'm doing is pointing out the inconsistency in allowing passive PvP while simultaneously disallowing consentual PvP.
|
|
And in that, yes, I would completely agree. What I'm doing is pointing out the inconsistency in allowing passive PvP while simultaneously disallowing consentual PvP.There's nothing to stop a cleric from selecting out PCs they don't like from channels in the middle of a fight. At least, not mechanically.
It's a total douche move, however.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting example, trollbill. Yet another case that illustrates it's possible to be in a situation of damned if you do, and damned if you don't... if that GM doesn't use a lens of reasonableness and his reading of the PvP rule is "Never, Ever... Not Even Hardly Ever".
TOZ's links upthread clearly show Mike Brock's support for PFS GMs applying said lens of reasonableness and being allowed to decide for themselves under what circumstances pathfinder PCs are allowed to "harm" each other... either through direct consequence like trollbill's example, unintended (on the part of the casting PC) consequence like the example in the OP, or by passive-aggressive PvP by deciding to stand back and watch the party get killed rather than helping in a fight the rogue's player thinks the party shouldn't have started. (in TOZ's linked example)
Just to add some additional weight to this statement, I will reveal that I left out one tiny little detail in my story. The GM was Mike Brock.
|
|
I personally don't see how a clause that talks about "intentional PvP" in any way protects from carelessly or mistakenly placed AE effects. If an effect's primary target is an opponent, I see no reason that it does't go off. Secondary targets don't trigger the "intentional PvP" as far as I can tell. At least not in a RAW manner, as intent is impossible to prove, so I'd say go off the primary target.
The good old days:
Wizard: I cast Fireball
DM: Where are you targetting?
Wizard: I detonate it in my hands, hitting all the attackers.
DM: ummmmm!!!!!
Wizard: Remember, I cast Protection from Fire a few minutes ago.
DM: But nobody else has Protection from Fire.
Wizard: Next time they won't make me take point.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
There's nothing to stop a cleric from selecting out PCs they don't like from channels in the middle of a fight. At least, not mechanically.Reductio ad absurdum much?Another flaw, I hope to prove fatal, to the argument of no "intentional PvP" meaning no harm to any PC ever:
If one cannot even subject a PC to the possibility of harm, say via failed reflex save by being inside an AoE, what allows you to subject YOUR OWN character to the possibility of harm? You might fall and take damage if you try to climb the wall. By the same (imo, unreasonable) reading of no "intentional PvP" equating to "no PC harm by players' hands", you can't even take the daily risks inherent in adventuring.
Since we're going hipster, I rebut with this.
If you don't get it, consider the implications of what "no harm via PvP EVER" means when you consider that includes action AND inaction.
If ithat cleric doesn't have Selective Channeling, then yes, there is something mechanically that stops them. And before someone says, "what cleric in his or her right mind wouldn't have selective channeling" I can tell you that I have played with a couple of clerics who didn't have it, and they were most effective, and not once was a PC in peril from it.