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.
Except there isn't. This isn't reality. No one actually died. The death of the necromancer character is the equivalent of the player having his toy broken from an out of game perspective.
Edit: Just realized you said in this case it's the broken toy not dead child. Read that wrong the first time.
Yep, absolutely. The player got his toy broken by doing silly things with it.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread started by asking a question, for which several answers have been offered. Personally, I think the correct answer has already been given.
The game is supposed to be fun for everyone present. Characters need to be played with that in mind. If this means negotiating with your fellow players, so be it. But the negativity that happened at this table is a result of player action and nothing else.
I believe those two PCs could have been piloted by different people and we could have had an entirely different--and positive--outcome from that table.
|
Then all the counter arguments about the necro player are null and void.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?
No? I think you skipped a post or two because I was curious if you thought the necromancer player was mistreating the other player or mistreating the human NPC by turning him undead. Let me try to fill that gap in.
"What human being did he mistreat?"
"He mistreated the other player by casting the create undead spell " + "to purposeful irk the other player."/"despite promising in game that he wouldn't do that."/"despite promising out of game that he wouldn't do that."
"Actions you have your character take do not count as mistreating other players."
"Then all the counter arguments about the necro player are null and void."
Now that I'm there, I still say no.
I'm not defending the necromancer if his intent was to purely irritate the other player, but much like the suggestions to follow up by putting the inquisitor 6 feet under, this is not a healthy game environment and neither the necromancer player nor the inquisitor player should be passive aggressively attacking each other if they ever want to continue sitting at tables with a random assortment of people. It just so happens that the inquisitor made the last decision that would involve these two characters together so I am more focused on that than the wrongs of the necromancer player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say I'd never play with someone who sat their and watched as my character or anyone else's slowly bled out to death. Hope I don't insult his fashion sense next 0_o;
I'd rather play with the necromancer.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These threads can be hard to read sometimes, one of my favorite characters I have is my Thassilonian Necromancer and many times he has adventured with paladins, clerics, war priests and I usually lead by telling them in my character introduction I'll try not create undead around them to respect their beliefs however if it is life or death for the success of the mission I may have to break that gurentee to ensure our survival. Its happened before and while he only has a few scenarios left till he is retired, it might happen again but in those cases most often it is level heads and a mutual understanding for each other's character and play style that wins out.
I think it's a shame that this situation we are discussing happened the way it did, obviously as most agree it probably could have been handled differently but it was handled how it was and that's in the past. I think that this discussion has been healthy at times and has been thought provoking but I am not sure much more can be gained through further discussion at this time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm also throwing one towards the Necro had his hand firmly on this too - he didn't want to work with the Inquis, and decided to just do what he wanted. The Inqy similarly decided to be shirty about it.
So they are both being dicks, the difference is that it went worse for the Necro.
I have no sympathy here.
On the other side of the coin, the Necro loves Necromancy, so now he scored a first hand experience of it. If they animated his corpse that would probably be going too far.
Co-operate is a two way street.
A "Please don't do that"
B "Screw you buddy, I'll do what I want, YOU have to co-operate"
Once again we have a second hand account that feels like the Necro was being a dick. We don't actually know if that was the case.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once again we have a second hand account that feels like the Necro was being a dick. We don't actually know if that was the case.
We can only base our opinions on the information given... trying to add in feelings, motivations, maybes and suppositions is fruitless.
As was related:
Necromancer and Inquisitor make agreement to work together is no undead are created.
Agreement stands and Inquisitor uses own resources to heal the party, including Necromancer.
Necromancer breaks agreement and raises an undead minion.
Inquisitor decides to walk away, sticking to original agreement resolution.
Party pleads with Inquisitor to stay to complete the mission.
Mission continues, but Inquisitor no longer renders assistance to Necromancer.
Given what was related here, it seems the Necromancer decided to end their agreement (whatever reason is irrelevant, simply that the pact was broken at this point), then the Inquisitor did stick around so that they could complete the mission, but he decided to cease administering healing to the Necromancer at that point on. One action (or inaction as it were) was the consequence of the other.
I am very disturbed by the number of people clamoring for punishment of the Inquisitor, throwing around claims of violations of (non existent) rules and oaths, or making outlandish claims of PvP violations (Even so far as to completely ignore or alter written rules to support their opinions). It is indeed just a game, and sometimes there are consequences in a game and sometimes you even may die in a game as a result of your decisions.
The true issue would be how the two players react after the fact and whether they can keep the issue an in character situation and not let it carry over.
Either way though, there should be no bending or re-interpreting of rules just because someone may have some sore feelings over a character loss.
|
Once again we have a second hand account that feels like the Necro was being a dick. We don't actually know if that was the case.We can only base our opinions on the information given... trying to add in feelings, motivations, maybes and suppositions is fruitless.
As was related:
Necromancer and Inquisitor make agreement to work together is no undead are created.
Agreement stands and Inquisitor uses own resources to heal the party, including Necromancer.
Necromancer breaks agreement and raises an undead minion.
Inquisitor decides to walk away, sticking to original agreement resolution.
Party pleads with Inquisitor to stay to complete the mission.
Mission continues, but Inquisitor no longer renders assistance to Necromancer.
Given what was related here, it seems the Necromancer decided to end their agreement (whatever reason is irrelevant, simply that the pact was broken at this point), then the Inquisitor did stick around so that they could complete the mission, but he decided to cease administering healing to the Necromancer at that point on. One action (or inaction as it were) was the consequence of the other.
I am very disturbed by the number of people clamoring for punishment of the Inquisitor, throwing around claims of violations of (non existent) rules and oaths, or making outlandish claims of PvP violations (Even so far as to completely ignore or alter written rules to support their opinions). It is indeed just a game, and sometimes there are consequences in a game and sometimes you even may die in a game as a result of your decisions.
The true issue would be how the two players react after the fact and whether they can keep the issue an in character situation and not let it carry over.
Either way though, there should be no bending or re-interpreting of rules just because someone may have some sore feelings over a character loss.
To those advocating for punishing the Inquisitor. Think of this analogy:
A kid is being bullied by another kid.The first kid finally says enough is enough, and lashes back at teh bully.
Why would you advocate only the one who lashed back be punished?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you have no way of enforcing that so it does make you a door mat. Either you get up when they sit down at a table or what?"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.
And the next time you are at the table with that player, and your character is down and needs healing, how do you force his character to heal you?
The only thing you accomplish by being passive aggressive is engender more aggression.
You have now made the game more uncomfortable for countless games to come.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll point it out again: For a necromancer to cast Animate Dead, he would have had to prepare it (and the material components) in advance.
He was INTENDING to do this all along.
As I said in my post, it's not the craziest thing to have one casting of it prepared as a back up. There is also the possibility he used an Arcane Bond to cast the spell as well. Additionally the material components aren't that expensive especially at those lower levels.
I think that without more information it is hard to judge either player.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
After seven pages, I think we can all agree, that we all should try to avoid ever getting into a similar situation, so:
Necromancers, you have plenty of wonderful spells at your disposal, you don't have to create undead, especially if other party members ask you not to do so.
Followers of Pharasma, try to bring back your party members alive, if you feel that you have to take some kind of retaliatory action, maybe just rip the spell out of their spellbook, they can recover from that, and maybe learn. The same thing isn't possible if you kill them.
GMs: Tell your players the consequences of their actions. If the players want to start a war, they better not try to do it at your table. Warn them that this kind of behavior could result in you banning one of both of them.
And for heavens sake, don't penalize players for healing party members under any circumstances (unless they try to "cure" the dhampir).
Everbody: Be nice and try to respect the other players, intentionally antagonizing others never ends well.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everybody: Be nice and try to respect the other players, intentionally antagonizing others never ends well.
Repeating what has been said by many of us: it is possible to have characters that don't get along and still have all the players enjoying the game. Figure out how to do that, in any case.
If I'm playing one of my paladins at the table, and one of the other players (such as Codanous, who is one of my good friends) wants to play his necromancer, great! We just have to figure out how to have our characters interact in a way that is fun for both of us, still true to the characters, and doesn't result in hurt feelings for anyone at the table.
I have never had one of my characters tell Codanous's necromancer to not raise dead. He has as much right to play his character the way he wants as I do to play my character the way I want. It might make my character angry, or sad, or vengeful, etc., but I don't have to take on those feelings too. I'm free to have fun, even if my character isn't.
One way I might do that: "Hey Codanous, do you mind if my paladin destroys the undead your necromancer just raised at the end of this battle? He might even use his smite evil."
And then Codanous might say: "Sure, but my necromancer will threaten to sue your paladin for destruction of private property."
Then we both laugh, and everyone has a good time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the next time you are at the table with that player, and your character is down and needs healing, how do you force his character to heal you?
The only thing you accomplish by being passive aggressive is engender more aggression.
You have now made the game more uncomfortable for countless games to come.
I don't force him to do anything.
If he does carry things over to a new table without me doing anything then I make sure the whole lodge hears about it. Then he is well past the don't be a jerk rule and it will be time to get the VL involved.
You feel justified in not healing his character because he did something that upset you.
He does not heal your character in return, because what you did upset him, so he is a big jerk and the VL should be involved.
Am I getting that right?
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I kind of feel sorry for the Inquisitor player. They came to have fun, had some asshat (by the sounds of it) absolutely ruin their night to the point the only thing thy could do is get threatened by the DM that they will get hit with an extra Atonement penalty for continuing to play when they had already decided to just eat the chronicle, but had been convinced to stay.
Do Religious Tenets trump Cooperation. Yes. Because by not following the religious tenets that are a rules mechanic of the character, there is an in game penalty. Characters are not just a bunch of numbers on a sheet, and being a Pathfinder is not the total of your character. It's only a part of it.
Cooperation is also a two way street. Not a shield you can hide behind to get your way and run over others. It does NOT favor those without moral or ethical beliefs. Cooperation does NOT mean you have to accommodate me in whatever why I choose. It means everyone has to work together, ALL THE TIME, not towards winning or completing the mission, but towards the players having fun.
All in all, I'd have to say that, again, from the sounds of it, it's mostly the Necromancer that's to blame, but also the DM for allowing that player to instigate things to that point that would actually make another player choose not to heal them. And the DM for not stepping up until it got to that point, or apparently reprimanding the Necromancer.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He did something to me. I responded. It is settled unless he wants to keep it going in which case I'll have no choice, since there are no other reasonable options available, to involve someone else who might reasonably deal with the jerk.
You seem to think there is some other option available but have failed to present one besides letting the jerk dictate what games I play at.
That only works if they both agree about which incident started it. Otherwise, they're both just trying to get even and it goes on forever.
Eventually, compromise has to happen, and an accord must be reached.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The inquisitor did something to the necromancer first by insisting he not raise undead during the scenario.
Neither is right.
What I'm trying to get across is that you can be passive aggressive and continue escalating the disagreement until the only solution is to bring in the VL, or you can try to get to an out-of-character solution earlier than that by talking to the other player.
If I was a VL or an organizer and two players came to me with the following...
A: "He wouldn't heal my character who was dying!"
B: "He wouldn't heal my character in the previous scenario, and turnabout is fair play!"
A: "He raised undead in that scenario and my character hates undead!"
B: "He wants to play his character the way he likes, but doesn't want my character—who loves undead—to be played the way I like!"
...then I would ask both players if they are able to drop this feud, and start working together in a way that is fun for everyone else in the room. If not, I would invite them to find a different venue.
On the other hand, if you try talking to the other player first, and try reaching an out-of-character solution from the get-go, you stand on the higher moral ground.
By engaging in petty passive aggressiveness, you risk not only pissing off the player you are disagreeing with, but also everyone else at the table (and possibly even other players in the room, not at the table, when they hear you are letting other player characters die needlessly).
If you insist on going down that road, good luck to you.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is really one of those things were as a four year pfs player I cannot imagine letting another character die no matter my feelings about their player.
It seems as petty as a two students in a painting clinic and one painter disliking the subject of another's painting and thus ruining it and all their progress. I may not like it but that dislike doesn't give me the right to dictate what they paint. Similarly for pfs, I may be unhappy that someone may have renagded on a promise but in the end it's a game, we are part of a group that is dedicated to cooperation. Even if not everyone is willing to cooperate doesn't make it okay to disregard that mantra. That becomes the "well, so and so did it so I thought it was okay if I did it." The Necromancer may have broken that cooperation aspect first, but the inquisitor in question didn't help the situation by thinking two wrongs make it right.
It just seems petty.
|
|
The inquisitor did something to the necromancer first by insisting he not raise undead during the scenario.I don't know that your characterization is accurate. The OP says they made an agreement. I have no idea what the context was.
Nor do I.*
Nor does anyone else except those who were there.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear: the point is precisely not who started it. The point is how to end it.
At some point in time, an out-of-character solution is needed. Maybe that out-of-character solution is something as severe as calling the VOs in. Regardless, we should try to find the out-of-character solution as soon as we recognize there is an out-of-character problem.
* I have, from the beginning, stated that I believe the necromancer is probably in the wrong. I grew up being taught that two wrongs do not make one right. I still believe that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you have no way of enforcing that so it does make you a door mat. Either you get up when they sit down at a table or what?"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.
Just jumping back in to point out this assertion that GM's have no recourse for problem players is 1000% false.
If a player is being disruptive* and/or making others uncomfortable I will speak to the player first and give him the chance to correct his actions. If he continues, I will boot him from the table and tell him to come back when he stops acting like a child. If he refuses I will absolutely walk from the table, after I get contact info from the other players to set up another session so they can finish the scenario. After that, the problem player will not be allowed to sit at one of my tables. I would let the VO's know the situation and the actions I took. This hasn't happened yet, for the most part PFS play in my area is pretty laid back.
*Barring any of the countless corner cases where the cause of the disruption is out of the control of player.
|
|
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.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, He is telling the jerk that by showing up at a table that Fox won't play at that table. Maybe as a VL you can boot people arbitrarily but most of us can't.
I must admit that you defending another poster making unsupported assertions bores me to tears.I'm waiting.I must admit you are not making it desirable to engage with you however.
Much like the players the OP referenced.
A GM always has the right to ask a disruptive player to leave his table.
|
|
"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.
This is a very adult way of handling what can be a very difficult situation.
If two people cannot be adult about a conflict, and come to some sort of compromise, then both don't get to play that character that day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jessex, it's not as obvious as that. Without being there, I would guess the "talk" at the beginning is probably around a 2 on the offense scale. As described, the necromancer took it in stride.
Animating the corpse would have been the same, but because he earlier agreed not to, it comes out to about, say, a 4.
Deciding not to act as part of the same team after that is what I consider the reasonable reaction there. It's probably around a 3. Shows that they're not friends but doesn't escalate the situation. (Note that since he's making a point to heal the dwarf and not just himself, it appears it's part of what the inquisitor thinks he brings to the party) As a result, the necromancer falls and probably can't act for a few rounds. Note that this is in itself a punishment since rounds that you can't act are unfun.
After it's over and there's nothing else to do, the inquisitor decides to let him die. This is at least a 7 and a significant escalation from what has already happened. I would also say that he has already responded to the slight of raising the zombie on the level of out-of-character annoyance.
I don't know the full story, but it's not cut and dried that the necromancer started it (and no, being a necromancer isn't starting anything OOC). Plus, there was already a response, so the statements about how unanswered slights are just enabling the offender don't have to apply.
Edit: And for the overall story, I'm of the opinion that they both have fault. The inquisitor shouldn't be forced to heal the necromancer, but it should have done it on his own. The failure to stabilize isn't an alignment infraction, but would be considered a black mark by the VC. The GM should mark on the chronicle and if it proves to be a pattern, the Society would consider revoking that character's membership.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you sure your not the inquisitor?
