|
You're wrong for this reason: "So I tell the DM If he causes a problem in the game for me, I wont hesitate to kill him. I am an inquisitioner. I have the duty to..." That very excuse ("That's what my character would do! I'm just playing my character!") has been used for over 30 years to self-justify all types of dickish behaviors by players. Those kinds of phrases are red flags. Intra-party strife (conflicts between PCs) can quickly and directly lead to intra-group strife (conflicts between players) and are not for the enjoyment and well-being of everyone involved.You saying he is wrong based on the assumptions we are talking about. You didn't even give an option for variance. Not generally wrong. Probably wrong. Maybe wrong. Then, you use a generalization to validate your statement, but still may not apply. Things like that tend to bring up this sort of conversation. Which is why you can't have nice things. I know I don't like being mislabeled, and when I mislabel people because I use generalizations... I expect there may be some pushback.
I'm saying he's wrong based on the facts he lays out in his OP. Don't forget that I also think the other player is wrong and the GM is wrong for the reasons I outlined in my initial post. This is an advice thread, so I'm completely comfortable making generalizations, especially when I can back them up with my own experience as a GM. As a GM, I actively try to avoid PVP for the reasons outlined by Kydeem de'Morcaine and Tormsskull above.
-Skeld
You're wrong for this reason: "So I tell the DM If he causes a problem in the game for me, I wont hesitate to kill him. I am an inquisitioner. I have the duty to..." That very excuse ("That's what my character would do! I'm just playing my character!") has been used for over 30 years to self-justify all types of dickish behaviors by players. Those kinds of phrases are red flags. Intra-party strife (conflicts between PCs) can quickly and directly lead to intra-group strife (conflicts between players) and are not for the enjoyment and well-being of everyone involved.You saying he is wrong based on the assumptions we are talking about. You didn't even give an option for variance. Not generally wrong. Probably wrong. Maybe wrong. Then, you use a generalization to validate your statement, but still may not apply. Things like that tend to bring up this sort of conversation. Which is why you can't have nice things. I know I don't like being mislabeled, and when I mislabel people because I use generalizations... I expect there may be some pushback.I'm saying he's wrong based on the facts he lays out in his OP. Don't forget that I also think the other player is wrong and the GM is wrong for the reasons I outlined in my initial post. This is an advice thread, so I'm completely comfortable making generalizations, especially when I can back them up with my own experience as a GM. As a GM, I actively try to avoid PVP for the reasons outlined by Kydeem de'Morcaine and Tormsskull above.
-Skeld
Fair enough. I try to do the opposite, but then I have a really good group that I've played with for 20 years now. Though I do play with a group that has a trouble player that I would assume... well I know that he does this sort of stuff.
I just enjoy the PvP aspects as it allows for more.. uh... realism when dealing with mature players. I had a Fighter (who thoguht he was a paladin. The world had no gods at the time.) who was going to betray the party and his gods uh... avatar? A super powerful wizard who became a stand in for the gods. It turns out that this avatar was keeping the god from returning to the world. It also kept the evil gods out. I wouldn't have been able to even conetmplate the idea if PvP was heavily declined.
I would say that I don't know who the heck he is, and kill him myself. Not selfishness, just doing your gods will through any means possible, which is the definition of the inquisitor. Heck, let him kill a few guys then go and kill him, and you'll get even deeper into the mob and probably get more power in it.
If the paladin doesn't serve his own god, he won't really care.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really understand the situation outlined in the OP, so that ignorance might make the following unhelpful, nonetheless.... For my part, it's not a right-wrong thing, it's about what everyone wants and how best to ensure the group continues to enjoy playing together.
I'd be worried that someone in the group is enjoying the intra party conflict - either by deliberately antagonising other players' characters or by deliberately taking a hard line, no compromise position. I don't think intraparty conflict ever works out unless the group goes into it with that expectation (which doesn't sound like the case here).
If it comes to a direct conflict, everyone is going to think they're "in the right" but one of you is going to lose and one is going to win. If you play through and your PC ends up dead, sentenced to life, executed or some other "roll up a new character" option you're probably going to think this other player ruined the game. The player you identify as the problem is likely to feel similarly if he's driven out of the group, killed or framed and locked up.
Given those outcomes, I'd suggest rebooting this facet of the storyline. Unless something gives, it seems to me to be very likely the campaign is going to end unpleasantly for at least one player. My approach would be to compromise, but if you or the rest of the group are unwilling to do that, I'd push for the isolated player to willingly write himself out of the campaign or drastically amend his interpretation of "what would my character do?"
I may be too pessimistic - there are certainly groups who can pull off this kind of competitive approach. My gut feel though is that you're heading for an unpleasant denouement and that cutting your losses now is the most likely way to preserve the group of players (whose feelings are more important than a bunch of fictional characters).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Substitute "responsibility", if you like. That is a thing the GM most definitely has.I would say that being a GM is not a job.Regardless, the GM is always right from a rules perspective. The GM's words are the rules...Incorrect. The GM is "the final arbiter when it comes to rules". That does not, in any way, form, or shape, translate to "he is always right" or "his words are the rules". His job in the game is to arbitrate. He is, in effect, President or Prime Minister of the game; he runs it, he doesn't own it. It belongs to the entire play group and he is only one individual among several in that group; maybe an individual with a very particular job, but an individual none the less. The GM is not your King, your Emperor, nor your God. He is another player in the game who has a specific job in the game. Period.I would say that GMing is not an obligation either.
He or she is the Game Master, not the game referee.
O_o
A referee is exactly what the GM's role is.
"A gamemaster (simplify as GM, also known as game master, game manager, game moderator or referee) is a person who acts as an organizer, officiant for questions regarding rules, arbitrator, and moderator for a multiplayer role-playing game."
... but then I have a really good group that I've played with for 20 years now. Though I do play with a group that has a trouble player that I would assume... well I know that he does this sort of stuff.
I just enjoy the PvP aspects as it allows for more.. uh... realism when dealing with mature players. ...
Recently, I was playing in a game with 5 other friends that I've been playing with for a long time. We used to have parties that would get along really well, or at the worst, might not trust each-other upfront but would grow to be a proper team. The "evil" campaigns generally had more disagreements, but nothing too bad.
But the more recent campaign had a LOT of in-fighting. It kind of became tedious, time-consuming, and just ruined the fun eventually. The original party (after a few early-game switches and deaths) had:
1. A paladin
2. A cleric (Me)
3. A sorcerer
4. An alchemist
5. A necromancer
6. A ninja
So, the things that kind of came up in the group were generally small things, but they were things that made at least 3 of the 6 characters go "Why the hell am I traveling with this person/these people?"
The problems were mostly generated by the alchemist. The character was a schizophrenic (however, the character never told the party this), who dissected animals in private to try and find a cure for his mental condition. So when he decided he was going to grab a stray cat off the street and cram in in a bag to kill and experiment on later, my character took severe offense to this and snatched the bag he stuffed the cat in from his hands and freed the cat, also threatening to stop him by force the next time he tried that. I am aware it was just a stray, but I kept accusing him of evil acts, whereas a few of the rest of the group, including the GM was like "That's not evil at all, you're being silly". At some point further in, we found a succubus who offered to give power to someone in our group in order to be freed. THAT was a can of worms all over the place. The cleric and paladin wanted to kill her. The necromancer decided to repeatedly drain the life of me and the paladin to try and stop us from stopping him and the alchemist from freeing her. And the sorceress just kinda stood there.
The paladin generally agreed with my character when he was around to do so. The sorcerer thought the in-fighting was hilarious, and generally just sat around laughing while we fought, and never really discouraged the alchemist's behavior; she even sometimes encouraged it. The necromancer was silent on most issues, and the ninja was kind of pissed off that nobody ever seemed to listen to him (Me and a couple other players did, but otherwise, he didn't seem to be considered most of the time). Eventually, the paladin had to be retired because he couldn't stand being around most of the party. My cleric, I ended up using rules for re-training and turned him into a Magus after forsaking his God and finding a black blade.
One huge thing about this whole issue is: If it ever did come to an actual fight, the alchemist's player had broken himself (Not using ANY 3rd party content) so thoroughly that he could kill the whole party alone if he felt like it. So if we DID decide to just leave him somewhere or try to aggressively stop him from doing something horrible, he'd likely end the game in a huge pile of just... death.
After a long assortment of a LOT of infighting, it basically ended up just being... Well, lots of games seemed to be a few of us yelling at each other. So when we kind of went on a hiatus, any time we could have played, I didn't really care enough to host anymore because it would have just been a big act of futility. So, yeah. My two cents on constant in-fighting or threats at each others' characters is that it does make the game feel more tedious or like a huge debate. Sure, SOME in-fighting and intrigue can cause awesome role-playing, but when it's always a thing of "Why the HELL is my character even here?", it becomes silly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, lost access.
... but then I have a really good group that I've played with for 20 years now. Though I do play with a group that has a trouble player that I would assume... well I know that he does this sort of stuff.
I just enjoy the PvP aspects as it allows for more.. uh... realism when dealing with mature players. ...
.
.The core players of my group have also been playing together for 20 years, but that's mostly irrelevant. It's a question of playstyle, not experience. Some groups are going to like PVP, while other groups won't. ...
I've played with a fair number of groups over the various incarnations of the game. Two of them could well handle PvP, Evil mixed in a Good party, wildly conflicting goals, etc... Most of them could not.
I think that is because of the numbers. For a group to handle it well, every single player (including the GM) need to be the type that handles it well. If even one of them doesn't handle it, there will likely be problems.
If the group doesn't allow intra party conflicts to get out of hand, there is a difference. If one guy could have handled those conflicts, it doesn't cause a problem, other than that one guy maybe missing this aspect of the game that he enjoys. But it doesn't break up the group or friendships.
I also wouldn't use the term 'mature player' since these issues have nothing directly to do with maturity. (People can and have made the case that no one playing the game is mature.) It is more of a way of playing the game, an outlook, or the type of game desired.
I know very immature people that can handle horrific PvP.
I know very mature people that can not handle (or at least don't want to handle) any PvP.
Stuff
Maybe I'm using maturity in the wrong sense. I believe it is... accurate, but then the actual definition of the word isn't refined enough to discuss what I'm speaking of. When I say maturity... I mean that they are capable of seeing that it is a game. That they know that the stuff doesn't matter, and don't let that argument come through to the real world. That its something to laugh about.
Anyways - I would say that you can be mature and play the game. To me -the game is just a way to express a story... so to argue that playing the game is inheritly immature (I know that you are not making that argument) would be saying that any form of reading abot fiction, or watching TV would also be immature. I would even say Pathfinder is a more mature medium than those aspects due to the idea that you're required to think and interact.
The core players of my group have also been playing together for 20 years, but that's mostly irrelevant. It's a question of playstyle, not experience. Some groups are going to like PVP, while other groups won't. Personally, I find it very disruptive to the cooperative nature of the game.
-Skeld
Well I feel the opposite. I think the possibility of PvP enriches the characters you're playing.
Though I do feel experience really helps. When you see a player who plays a paladin of Cuthbert, also play an evil wizard, then back to a cleric of Heronious, and then a Bard in service to a chivalric kingdom who has no compunction for killing people in thier sleep. The more times you see a player make a character that is different, the easier it is for you to divorce the player from thier characters. This is just the first idea that experience may assist with on the subject. I'm sure there are more as well. We used to ban PvP too, but we got over it.
I have usually found exactly the opposite. Two characters (or players)start arguing/fighting and everyone else gets quiet and uncomfortable. People shut down and don't roleplay anything at all because apparently, that just leads to arguments. If it happens very much, the group and maybe the friendships break up....
Also I find inter-party strife to be something that can help get less active players more active in the environment, and help develop characters further. ...
Yes, exactly. Some people will even quietly leave the game if this occurs too often.
It NEVER helps.
I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with a lot of the posters in the thread. Deliberately killing a paladin in good standing is always going to be an evil act in a game I'm running. There are a lot of alternatives to killing the paladin that would stop him from screwing up your plan.
Yeah, I have to agree that murdering the paladin is taking things too far and I'd make sure there were repercussions. One evil act isn't exactly going to change your alignment, but I'd start scrutinizing behavior a bit more if that's your answer to a meddlesome do-gooder.
That said, this is an issue you probably need to resolve away from the table and set what levels of cooperation and conflict are expected from all of the players.