Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been reading this thread for a while now, and I think that we need to build more on Dorothy's list of how to avoid situations like this in the future.
4) As a GM, try to negotiate/mediate disputes between players.
You're a judge, not just a narrator. You can't force the inquisitor to heal the necromancer, sure, but you can certainly try to convince him or at least get him to explain why he won't in a way the other player can accept. If there's a question of violating the inquisitor's oath to Pharasma, suggest a solution that won't violate the oath (e.g., "I won't ding your alignment if you X instead of Y"). In this particular case, I might have tried something like, "If you stabilize him, you'll have the opportunity to convince him to change his ways, which would be a bigger win for Pharasma than just letting him die."
So here are my thoughts. Let's stop worrying if Inky or Nethro were right, and which one was a jerk. Let's worry about this from the GM's perspective.
__________________________________
Our GM, Gigi, hears Inky's and Nethro's character concepts. If the players are not known to her, or worse, if they're known to be hotheads, maybe she takes a moment in the beginning to do this:
GM: (in character as VC at the briefing); 'A pharasmite and a necromancer, eh?" Raises eyebrow, shuffles paperwork in front of him. "Do you boys think you can put the mission first, or will I have to reassign one of you?"
Reset the cooperate expectation early. If Inky and Nethro start arguing, call that timeout and mediate.
I think that moving forward with a solution like Dorothy proposed above would be an excellent move for GM Gigi.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not talking about RP. I'm talking about ooc, you make the point that you have the power to allow them to die, but that this one time you are going to save them, even though they broke their promise and don't deserve it. You make sure they understand the consequences they have brought on themselves, and also that you are a good enough person that you are going to help them past them...this time.
It's not rocket science...it's pretty standard parenting.
Your parenting and mine differ. I warn my child of the consequences of his actions and if he chooses to disobey, he pays them. Simple as that.
S.
There is a difference between: "Son if you continue to play with your toy like that you toy will break...Sorry your toy is broken I'm not replacing it" and "Son if you don't look both ways when crossing the street you may get hit by a car...He was a good kid but I told him to look both ways, and when he started into the road I just let'm go"
In this case though it is much more the case of a broken toy then a dead child.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most interesting item was the "evil" guy gets pvped. On the converse I've played many fun encounters with Andorans vs. my Chelaxians and this kind of "Im not going to ... because .... doesn't ocurr on both sides."
A pharasman paladin even burned some ogre bodies I intended to raise as defenders. I and my fellow Asmodean cleric simply gave him a hand (golf clapping).
So yes, I never thought pvp was allowed via Asimov's 3rd law of robotics. The number of people who have no problem with it is similarly interesting and confirms my table test questionaire is needed in future games...because I am interested in how/if this theory is widely held.
I guess my problem is that I play an 'evil' guy who has been in the same situation. I acted in a way that the group did not agree with and we told that while they would not kill me, they felt no responsibility to keep me alive. I either bowed to public opinion and stopped what I was doing or continued because I believed (IC or OOC) that it needed to be done. But I did so based on the stated consequences and my perception of their effect on me. I have never had to pay for a rez based on these consequences but would gladly, as once the choice was put in my hands, the responsibility became mine.
To tell someone that they have to stabilize a fallen team mate that knows the consequences of his or her actions, means there are none. OOCly telling someone that you saved them once but not again, when they know that you have to save them regardless cheapens the threat and, in the end, leads to tables where people do whatever they please because noone can stop them. It becomes WoW with pencils, people griefing because they can, as long as they stay JUST on this side of 'dont be a jerk'
S.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not talking about RP. I'm talking about ooc, you make the point that you have the power to allow them to die, but that this one time you are going to save them, even though they broke their promise and don't deserve it. You make sure they understand the consequences they have brought on themselves, and also that you are a good enough person that you are going to help them past them...this time.
It's not rocket science...it's pretty standard parenting.
Your parenting and mine differ. I warn my child of the consequences of his actions and if he chooses to disobey, he pays them. Simple as that.
S.
There is a difference between: "Son if you continue to play with your toy like that you toy will break...Sorry your toy is broken I'm not replacing it" and "Son if you don't look both ways when crossing the street you may get hit by a car...He was a good kid but I told him to look both ways, and when he started into the road I just let'm go"
In this case though it is much more the case of a broken toy then a dead child.
Oh absolutely. And if we were talking about more than a game, I would agree. Your example is actually very valid. "Son(Necro) if you continue to play with your toy like that (raise undead) your toy will break (I will not heal or stabilize you) ... Sorry your toy is broken (you are in bleed out) and I'm not replacing it (I am not healing you)"
In the end, the player lost a TOY, admittedly one he spent time and effort on; but a toy nonetheless.
If the situation was this: Necro player is choking on a chicken bone and Inquisitor player watches him die despite knowing the heimlich because his character raised undead when asked not to, my opinion would be vastly different.
It is better that people learn how to deal with consequences in a game rather than losing a job or relationship in the real world.
S.
If you view it as a toy thats fine. But that can't be the inquisitor's reasoning on letting him die. Some people are are bringing the character's religion as a reasoning and thats not just about a toy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So here are my thoughts. Let's stop worrying if Inky or Nethro were right, and which one was a jerk. Let's worry about this from the GM's perspective.
I agree that some form of compromise would have went a long way; but to say that he should have healed the Necro everytime or be guilty of PVP is absurd.
S.
|
|
If you view it as a toy thats fine. But that can't be the inquisitor's reasoning on letting him die. Some people are are bringing the character's religion as a reasoning and thats not just about a toy.
You misunderstand me, I value each and every one of my characters and play PFS for the roleplay and immersion. My response was in reply to the likening of letting someone's character die to letting a child be hit by a car.
Death was horrid for the /character/ and I don't believe the Inquisitor's /character/ was seeking to teach the necro's /character/ a lesson, he was letting him die or live on his own merits.
The lesson is for the /player/ and it is this: You may need the assistance of those you are mocking/harrassing/bullying. Please do not believe that I will keep your best interests in mind when you clearly do not have mine in yours.
Perhaps I was unclear and I apologize for that.
S.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To let someone lose all their effort that went into the character for an in character dispute is even more absurd.
Everyone here; if my character is ever dying, another party member is frantically trying to save me, someone has already died on the mission, and I ask if you could please help me out of character I hope you could have the heart to spare a 15 gold wand charge you bought with prestige rather than let my character die even if I had offended you in a game.
If you really couldn't at least manage that I don't think it's very hard to slap the 'was a jerk' label on you.
If I was somehow 'a jerk' already that doesn't give an excuse for you to be one.
Anyone who wouldn't help here needs to grow up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To let someone lose all their effort that went into the character for an in character dispute is even more absurd.
Everyone here; if my character is ever dying, another party member is frantically trying to save me, someone has already died on the mission, and I ask if you could please help me out of character I hope you could have the heart to spare a 15 gold wand charge you bought with prestige rather than let my character die even if I had offended you in a game.
If you really couldn't at least manage that I don't think it's very hard to slap the 'was a jerk' label on you.
If I was somehow 'a jerk' already that doesn't give an excuse for you to be one.
Anyone who wouldn't help here needs to grow up.
... And if you asked and knew why it was that I did not want to heal you in the first place, I would spend a charge off my Cure Serious Wand, bought at more gold than it was worth. But if you taunt and bully me and then expect me to care about your time and effort; expect that I will show that time and effort the same amount of care that you showed me ten minutes ago when you thought that you could do so without consequences.
S.
|
|
If you view it as a toy thats fine. But that can't be the inquisitor's reasoning on letting him die. Some people are are bringing the character's religion as a reasoning and thats not just about a toy.
The character to character interaction is about role playing, the player to player reinforcement of that interaction reinforcing the consequences of role playing a choice which might be objectionable for the lolz.
|
I apologize that this is long past but I feel I must chime into this.
You just destroyed your own argument by saying that how something is viewed is based on intent and result.
The intent of the Necromancer was to raise a skeleton/zombie to be used as a meat shield/dps for the good of the party. Let the Zombie take the hits in place of the tank, keeping the tank alive longer. That doesnt seem evil to me.
Thus raising undead is no more as evil an act as casting an evil spell for a good purpose.
The baby will grow up to be a force of great evil, spreading death and destruction across the land!
If you murder the baby now, you will prevent that greater evil later, for the good of all.
The intent may be good, but the act is still evil.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The intent of the Necromancer was to raise a skeleton/zombie to be used as a meat shield/dps for the good of the party. Let the Zombie take the hits in place of the tank, keeping the tank alive longer. That doesnt seem evil to me.
Thus raising undead is no more as evil an act as casting an evil spell for a good purpose.
Alric, the people closest to the scene suggest otherwise, that the necromancer was deliberately casting raise dead to antagonize the inquisitor, not because the zombie would be helpful in the fight. I agree with you, if it had been an emergency situation, that would have changed a lot of people's perspectives here.
|
|
As the original poster I have to say I have really taken the comments to heart and will make sure the GM in question reads this thread, but I do have some thoughts of my own.
First off, how can anyone say a PC has to do anything that will use talent, skills or abilities if the character doesn't want to or it will be an act of PVP? Healers have to heal the party... Do Fighters HAVE to act a human shield for the spell casters? If so, there are a lot of PVP Fighters out there, who rush off and do their own things in combat. What about rogues who refuse to engage in combat and/or attempt to sneak attack or check for traps (because they might get caught in it)? What about a Cleric who wants to save a positive channel in order to destroy undead (in case they are encountered) rather than use that same channel to heal the party, are they committing PVP? Or the spell caster who refuses to use the last charge on item X, which results in an extended combat which leads to the death of another PC. Is that PVP?
GM are guides and facilitators, not dictators in regards to how players play their PC. PFS requires Clerics and Inquisitors to select gods and domains- if they wanted tenets of the faith to be more lax, them maybe remove deities altogether and just let them pick their domains as they see fit. I would also add that without some fundamental roleplaying- this might as well be a board game. The roleplaying is a key feature which IMHO occasionally suffers during PFS play.
|
|
You know, neither side of this argument is going to be able convince the other, so maybe we should all take a step back from this thread for a bit.
or we can address the real jerk... the rogue leaving his team mates behind to weather the storm alone and afraid. He was obviously the glue holding this dysfunctional team together and he selfishly died knowing the consequence.
tbh the OP never asked who was in the right just for reassurance that the gm did the correct thing and I believe he did. PFS has rules, none of them require the inquisitor to expend his own resources to heal a player that by the sound of it was hiding behind the no PVP rule.
|
|
I am just going to put it out there. At least one source (The confirmation) explicitly states that Pathfinder agents are supposed to put the team, mission, and core tenents of the Pathfinder Society itself over any moral or THEOLOGICAL differences various members may have.
That being said, anyone who joins the Society should know that they will run into unsavory allies, right? And will have to put the team above their god? The word theological kind of implies that.
|
I'm not talking about RP. I'm talking about ooc, you make the point that you have the power to allow them to die, but that this one time you are going to save them, even though they broke their promise and don't deserve it. You make sure they understand the consequences they have brought on themselves, and also that you are a good enough person that you are going to help them past them...this time.
It's not rocket science...it's pretty standard parenting.
Your parenting and mine differ. I warn my child of the consequences of his actions and if he chooses to disobey, he pays them. Simple as that.
S.
There is a difference between: "Son if you continue to play with your toy like that you toy will break...Sorry your toy is broken I'm not replacing it" and "Son if you don't look both ways when crossing the street you may get hit by a car...He was a good kid but I told him to look both ways, and when he started into the road I just let'm go"
In this case though it is much more the case of a broken toy then a dead child.
Oh absolutely. And if we were talking about more than a game, I would agree. Your example is actually very valid. "Son(Necro) if you continue to play with your toy like that (raise undead) your toy will break (I will not heal or stabilize you) ... Sorry your toy is broken (you are in bleed out) and I'm not replacing it (I am not healing you)"
In the end, the player lost a TOY, admittedly one he spent time and effort on; but a toy nonetheless.
If the situation was this: Necro player is choking on a chicken bone and Inquisitor player watches him die despite knowing the heimlich because his character raised undead when asked not to, my opinion would be vastly different.
It is better that people learn how to deal with consequences in a game rather than losing a job or relationship in the real world.
S.
I suspect we're actually pretty close in our approaches...but just draw the line a little differently when it comes to our default actions. I can certainly imagine cases where I wouldn't stabilize the necromancer (continuing insults or, as you suggest, a smug attitude of entitlement) and I bet you can imagine cases where you would (the player making what you perceived to be a sincere apology that indicated they had truly learned their lesson).
|
|
Just heal the guy and move on with your life. It's only a game after all.
But he then has to sit with this guy again; and this player knows that he can whatever he wants with no repercussions. If you have a lot of tables on a weekly basis, not sitting at his table is an option; but if not, you have now become a door mat for this players bad actions. Should the player have stood up for himself OOC and said, 'Dude, stop being a jerk.'? Sure; but he did not. He elected to keep it IC, as was his right. I play a character that is 180 degrees from me as a person and have had IC issues with some of my closest friends. But keeping it IC helps friendships.
It is just a game could be said to the player of the Necro as well. It is just a piece of paper. You took a chance that you could play how you wanted, when you wanted and got bitten by it when the one person you were figuratively flipping off was the one person who could have saved your character.
Rather than getting upset about it and throwing a fit, perhaps (and this is where personal responsibility comes in to play) he should have taken it as a lesson learned and carried on.
Just my opinion.
S.
That is largely reasonable, but what if it was the other situation. Inquisitor dying, Necromancer has chance for no-cost stabilize, shugs and moves on. Inquisitor dies and gets to die and learn a lesson that, instead of throwing a fit, perhaps (and this is where personal responsibility comes in to play) he should have taken it as a lesson learned and carried on.
This is not the game environment that should exist and no better than just saying, "well, I guess you didn't directly attack their character."
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. The necromancer CHARACTER was in the WRONG for going back on his word without renegotiating with the inquisitor character.
2. The inquisitor CHARACTER was fully in the RIGHT for not healing (or even stabilizing) the necromancer.
3. The necromancer's PLAYER was in the WRONG for goading the inquisitor's player.
4. The inquisitor's PLAYER was in the WRONG for not not having his character stabilize the necromancer character.
This is a game. It is supposed to be fun. For everyone. If you aren't making it more fun, then why are you there?
Don't goad other players.
Don't let other players' characters die just because they goaded you.
To the GM: it is okay to ask, "Are you guys having fun? It doesn't seem like it. I'm here to have fun, and I think everyone else is too. How can we get back to that point where we are enjoying this game?"
|
You just destroyed your own argument by saying that how something is viewed is based on intent and result.
The intent of the Necromancer was to raise a skeleton/zombie to be used as a meat shield/dps for the good of the party. Let the Zombie take the hits in place of the tank, keeping the tank alive longer. That doesnt seem evil to me.
Thus raising undead is no more as evil an act as casting an evil spell for a good purpose.
That's rather overstating things, given that what you cited is not the reason I was considering it evil :) You could use the zombies to run an orphanage and soup kitchen for all I care, and it would still be evil - the result is binding an unwilling soul to a life of continual torment (as evidenced by the fact that the undead being must be destroyed before resurrection magic can work to restore base creature to life). THAT is the evil part, and willingly creating undead expresses an intent to do exactly this - it's no better than torturing a living being, something that is unambiguously evil.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And how precisely will you ever stop being a jerk if there are no consequences for being such an enormous jerk to the people you game with?Who here has advocated for there to be no consequences?You and everyone on your side of this debate.
What consequence is there if the inquisitor has to save the necro? PFS rules preclude requiring payment or any other loss that would actually effect the jerk. Letting his character die is literally the only option open to other players in this sort of situation.
"Hey man, that was really uncool. We agreed that your character wouldn't raise undead during this scenario, and you went back on your word. I stabilized your character this time, so you wouldn't lose your character, but if you are going to play like that in the future, please don't sit at the same table as me."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You and everyone on your side of this debate.And how precisely will you ever stop being a jerk if there are no consequences for being such an enormous jerk to the people you game with?Who here has advocated for there to be no consequences?
You assume far too much.
MY consequences come outside the game, between the PLAYERS who have the problem.
|
|
Also, there is the option of stabilizing him, dragging him back to town, and then tying him up to a farm animal in a compromising position in the middle of the town square.
How about tying him up and dragging him back to the Pharasman temple to be dealt with as should any who cavorts with the undead. That way it's only a 5pp recovery mission instead of a 16pp raise, assuming the society gets there fast enough to avoid the whole burning at the stake thing.
|
|
And how precisely will you ever stop being a jerk if there are no consequences for being such an enormous jerk to the people you game with?Who here has advocated for there to be no consequences?You and everyone on your side of this debate.
What consequence is there if the inquisitor has to save the necro? PFS rules preclude requiring payment or any other loss that would actually effect the jerk. Letting his character die is literally the only option open to other players in this sort of situation.
You could certainly require/work out an arrangement where the necromancer donates a significant number of hours as penance for the acts he has done. If the players aren't at open war then that might be an option.
Or are when you say, "any other loss that would actually effect the jerk", do you mean "any other loss that would affect that jerk player." You want to punish the other player and the in-character justifications don't help with that because this is out of character.
And then, same question as I asked another. What if the inquisitor was dying and the necromancer could heal him for free? Should that other player go, "well, I don't like how your character treated mine so I'll just let your character die. Goodbye." Do consequences only apply for characters you don't like?
|
|
"You took the cookies... son. I told you there would be consequences."
"But Pa, I'm drowning?!"
"It's the only way you'll learn not to break a promise."
*walks away*
Yes, because letting a PFS character die is *totally* like letting a child drown. This is more akin to a kid hitting his brother over the head with a toy and getting it taken away - I don't care if it was his favoritest, most awesome toy ever that he had invested so much time into playing with, he abused it and suffered the consequences.
|
|
So you're giving him power over where you play? You must enjoy being a door mat. I quit letting myself be mistreated like that decades ago.
No. We're giving him power to adjust his play style if he wants to continue participating it our games. It's part of growing a community, be it a single group or a local gameday. If he can't adjust, he gets to find a new place to play.
I'm waiting.
I must admit you are not making it desirable to engage with you however.
Much like the players the OP referenced.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, there is the option of stabilizing him, dragging him back to town, and then tying him up to a farm animal in a compromising position in the middle of the town square.How about tying him up and dragging him back to the Pharasman temple to be dealt with as should any who cavorts with the undead. That way it's only a 5pp recovery mission instead of a 16pp raise, assuming the society gets there fast enough to avoid the whole burning at the stake thing.
Good fun was had dragging the unconscious paladin to the middle of nowhere. He got to see if his friends in society could get there before the wild animals did.
Good times.
|
|
Also, there is the option of stabilizing him, dragging him back to town, and then tying him up to a farm animal in a compromising position in the middle of the town square.How about tying him up and dragging him back to the Pharasman temple to be dealt with as should any who cavorts with the undead. That way it's only a 5pp recovery mission instead of a 16pp raise, assuming the society gets there fast enough to avoid the whole burning at the stake thing.Good fun was had dragging the unconscious paladin to the middle of nowhere. He got to see if his friends in society could get there before the wild animals did.
Good times.
That was a bit of a joke, I don't actually advocate turning in fellow Pathfinders to the authorities, no matter how much they deserve it :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was a bit of a joke, I don't actually advocate turning in fellow Pathfinders to the authorities, no matter how much they deserve it :)Also, there is the option of stabilizing him, dragging him back to town, and then tying him up to a farm animal in a compromising position in the middle of the town square.How about tying him up and dragging him back to the Pharasman temple to be dealt with as should any who cavorts with the undead. That way it's only a 5pp recovery mission instead of a 16pp raise, assuming the society gets there fast enough to avoid the whole burning at the stake thing.Good fun was had dragging the unconscious paladin to the middle of nowhere. He got to see if his friends in society could get there before the wild animals did.
Good times.
I understand, kinda hard to read whether people are serious about their suggestions on how each player should indicate their displeasure.
|
|
And how precisely will you ever stop being a jerk if there are no consequences for being such an enormous jerk to the people you game with?Who here has advocated for there to be no consequences?You and everyone on your side of this debate.
What consequence is there if the inquisitor has to save the necro? PFS rules preclude requiring payment or any other loss that would actually effect the jerk. Letting his character die is literally the only option open to other players in this sort of situation.
You could certainly require/work out an arrangement where the necromancer donates a significant number of hours as penance for the acts he has done. If the players aren't at open war then that might be an option.
Or are when you say, "any other loss that would actually effect the jerk", do you mean "any other loss that would affect that jerk player." You want to punish the other player and the in-character justifications don't help with that because this is out of character.
And then, same question as I asked another. What if the inquisitor was dying and the necromancer could heal him for free? Should that other player go, "well, I don't like how your character treated mine so I'll just let your character die. Goodbye." Do consequences only apply for characters you don't like?
That is within his right.
S.
|
|
I understand, kinda hard to read whether people are serious about their suggestions on how each player should indicate their displeasure.
That it is, especially when mixing jokes and serious posts. Note to self: Include more smilies in posts.
:D :D
Kirby dance time!
(o.o)
(>o.o)>
<(o.o<)
<(o.o)>
^(o.o)^
|
|
I suspect we're actually...
I don't doubt it. I wasn't even saying that I would have let him bleed out for raising the undead or being an a$$hat; I was not there and can not make a prediction without more information. I have gone back on a 'I will not help you if you continue to ... ' threat on more than one occasion because I thought they had learned their lesson by the mere threat of having to reroll or they apologized or someone at the table convinced me to give them another chance. I am not a monster, I just play one in PFS.
My point was mostly that it was not PvP and some people will never interact with other people correctly if you coddle them. It (again) goes back to a strong sense of Personal Responsibility that was engrained in me by my own parents at a very young age.
S.
|
|
The player took the action the player should have the consequences. It isn't like he didn't know he was being a jerk. Why is it so hard for everyone to agree that he should pay some price for mistreating a fellow human being?
Which human being did he mistreat?
That is always his right.
I can't argue that is inconsistent between the two characters.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Hey man, that was really uncool. We agreed that your character wouldn't raise undead during this scenario, and you went back on your word. I stabilized your character this time, so you wouldn't lose your character, but if you are going to play like that in the future, please don't sit at the same table as me."
Just reposting this.
I said that he would not be welcome at my table.
If a player cannot play the game without griefing other players, they are not welcome at any table where I am sitting. I will tell them that.
That does not make me a door mat.
Jessex, your method of standing up for yourself seems rather passive aggressive to me. I prefer a more direct approach.
If I was a third party—the dwarf's player, say—sitting at that table, I'd probably be uncomfortable sitting at a table with either player in the future. But if the inquisitor's player had said, "I'm going to stabilize your character this time, but don't grief other players in the future," then I—as the dwarf's player—would say, "yeah, I agree with this guy. You are getting off lucky by him saving your character. If you play games in the future the way you played today, you will be unwelcome at my table too."
It gives the necromancer's player an opportunity to change his behavior.
Your solution does not do that. Instead, he is just pissed off, and so is everyone else, and that kind of poison can be very bad for a lodge, especially smaller lodges.