Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Actually you will find that if you abide by the golden rule you will never have any issues with me. People who don't...Basically your argument is that players should be free to mistreat others and people should just have to take it. I think that is horrible.Funny. I thought that was YOUR argument.The literal interpretation of the golden rule is rather problematic. I hope you have the more nuanced/meta version in mind.
Not to mention that "having issues" with people who don't agree with your moral philosophy is very likely breaking the golden rule itself.
Maybe you are confused.
The golden rule is "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."And as always note, actions have consequences. If you mistreat someone do not expect them to blithely accept it. Some people may, the people you deal with most may. Everyone does not and the ones who do not may surprise you in very unpleasant ways.
I'm familiar with the Golden Rule. Have you read any discussion evaluating it as a moral philosophy? It's problems stem from the assumption that everyone wants to be treated the same, which is almost never perfectly true. This is likely a large part of the contention over this scenario.
Both the necromancer and the inquisitor are following the Golden Rule in their minds. The necromancer player might value the roleplay opportunities of character conflict and not realize the other player will take offense at a character action. While the inquisitor player values honoring the in-character agreement and sees his actions as justified retaliation to an oathbreaker.
If I mistreat someone, there are a lot better options for resolution than taking it out on my characters. Resorting to that kind of pettiness is both being a jerk and possibly a bully. Anyone who would "surprise me in an unpleasant way" is pretty categorically an unpleasant person.
Yes, actions have consequences. The necromancer broke his promise, and died. The inquisitor let him die and should atone. In both cases, the person enforcing the "consequence" was being a bit of a jerk (the inquisitor and the GM, respectively). If neither took it upon themselves to "enforce consequences" everyone would be a lot happier. The consequence of enforcing "consequences" is that everyone has a lot less fun.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So not only is it okay to force a character's action but you feel it within your right to change the player's interpretation of their own character?
I have never advocated forcing the character to take an action. Nor did I say I would force the alternate interpretation.
I have always stood by the idea that "it is what my character would do" does not absolve the player of the responsibility for his own choices in playing the character.
Regardless of if it is casting a spell another player asked you not to or letting another character bleed to death.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it a cleric of Gunssuckia, God of Gun Hatred, who derives his divine power from hating guns and who would have their power stripped if they cooperate with a gun user?Some trimmed thingsThe godly power is irrelevant as it is pretty clear that only the crappiest tier of GMs would declare your powers stripped if you partied in an arbitrary PFS party and took actions so that they didn't die.
Hi, Blazej. Could you do me the favor of considering the situation being discussed and your words above again? I'd appreciate it.
Upon review I regret it. I made it personal when I should not have. GMs have the right to determine whether clerics are keeping their ethos, but I believe the should not so, either purposely or incidentally, in a way that would set the party against one another.
Apologizes for making the thread worse.
I think this one is pretty much talked out. Nobody wins this argument. My only statement is that I don't believe that anybody broke any rules. This is a series of unfortunate events.
Maybe. But it also may be a series of unfortunate events that stemmed from dysfunctional behavior and that's a little more concerning than simply a series of unfortunate events. That would be just bad luck, the jerk behavior, if jerky it was, adds an element of "asking for it" to the misfortune.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
