|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, a dead character is one who can't uphold the commands of their deity.
I had a player, new to group, who was show boating a teensy bit, which no one minded. But once in the dungeon he got stuck in a trap, so everyone went off to find a way to open the trap, or otherwise find them again.
They assumed the others simply ran off, not caring, so they wrote on paper to me "My character is setting out to kill the whole party now" as he swore that he didn't want to do it but his character felt that way.
He talked it out with the players, so they understand where the miscommunication was (it was also hella noisy in the game store that day, damn you Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh) and seeing their character was 'removed from the game' via the trap I set up a side session with them, where in their char was altered somewhat (by a God, no less) before they were spat back out into the world with a Lawful alignment.
The issue itself wasn't bad, but them being a Rogue who had suped up their stealth etc, and wanted to stalk the other PCs and told the other players as much certainly leaves you in an odd position. "Do you really expect me to role play you killing everyone else FAIRLY?" sprang to mind. I'd feel only too impelled to say "Roll stealth," then catch the dice roll and plant it at a '1'.
As a player: I'd differ to the GM immediately, saying "You're not going to actually GM a session where we can all be killed by a lethal assassin, are you?"
|
I also play a Vudrani paladin monk of Irori. On that character I have, in fact, accepted atonement and penance for behavior, due to fact that if he had acted differently the party would have failed, likely imprisoned, and as he saw it other innocent lives would have been imperiled.)
I've played my Champion of Irori to level 15 without ever needing an atonement and without, in my opinion, ever being a jerk.
Obviously this could be just luck (good on my part or bad on yours) but I think that it is definitely also possible that you're being TOO accomodating. Sometimes you really SHOULD stand up for what you believe in. You can do that WITHOUT crossing the line to becoming a jerk.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Remember, a dead character is one who can't uphold the commands of their deity.
Well see there's the problem. The action itself isn't jerky at all on its own. Its probably the MOST common reaction. What you're saying is that the complaining is always wrong, you have to go along with the group , and knowing is half the battle...
No. Some degree of individuality is allowed, even expected. The pharasmin is not being a jerk he's being an individual.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think things got a little unfocused by me trying to give an example. I was merely trying to explain that given a choice between breaking character and being a jerk, I chose to break character and accept the penalty for doing so.
At the end of the day, we are playing a game. The characters we create are works of fiction. It's a hobby. Something we do for fun.
As such, the excuse, "it's what my character would do" is not and will never be a valid excuse for jerkish behavior.
It is important to remember that any choices a character makes is ultimately also a choice the player makes. So it is not just the character being a jerk. It's the player being a jerk. There is no hiding behind the personality of the character as an excuse because that personality is entirely decided by the player.
Roleplay is what we do. It is central to this hobby of ours. However, it is ALWAYS something that needs to take a backseat to how we treat our fellow players and GMs.
-j
|
|
I think things got a little unfocused by me trying to give an example.
-j
I think that shows the difference between the theory and the practice. In theory don't be a jerk is a great idea. In practice it seems to mean you have to be the same as everyone else or you're a jerk. That's obvious not what meant but that's often the result.
Sometimes the needs of the one are so great outweigh the needs of the many. - Chaotic good.
Its vectors. You need to consider how strong the motivation is well as how many people are pulling. A paladin trying not to become a fighter without bonus feats has a reaaaaly strong pull vs "Hey i have a diplomacy score!" or "Hmmm i could check this faction thingy..."
|
I suppose I mean much more obvious jerk behavior.
At least, obvious to everyone else at the table.
I know there is some disagreement on what exactly that is, but once it is confirmed, how do you handle it?
How have you handled it?
How do you handle it as a fellow player?
How do you handle it as a DM?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Remember, a dead character is one who can't uphold the commands of their deity.
Well see there's the problem. The action itself isn't jerky at all on its own. Its probably the MOST common reaction. What you're saying is that the complaining is always wrong, you have to go along with the group , and knowing is half the battle...
No. Some degree of individuality is allowed, even expected. The pharasmin is not being a jerk he's being an individual.
So I was responding to the idea that those situations would force the PC to act in a certain way or risk atonement. My argument was that there is multiple ways to act in a situation and that you can still follow your religion's tenants without forcing the hand of the rest of the party.
That being said...
Yes, I am saying that not going along with the group is being a jerk. If the rest of the group wants to try method A, and you go along with method B despite knowing that it will invalidate method A, you are being a jerk. You can certainly try to convince your party that A is stupid and that B is really the right method, but if the rest of the party is looking to take A, the cooperate tenant of the Society is going to kick in.
If in-character this is too much of a problem for your PC, the perhaps the Society isn't for that character and she would be better suited for a home game. If this becomes a problem out-of-character, then sit down and talk about it like adults with your GM and the other players. If that is unsatisfactory, talk about it with your VO.
(Which is not to say by the way that the group can't be a jerk. I've definitely seen the case where the party abandoned a member in the middle of a combat because he was mildly annoying to one person. At that point, the group was really being a jerk since the abandoned member really didn't do anything except be in the front of the group (which was where he belonged). In situations like these, it becomes important for the GM to step in, which is why one of the biggest regrets I have from GMing was letting the party abandon him.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose I mean much more obvious jerk behavior.
At least, obvious to everyone else at the table.
I know there is some disagreement on what exactly that is, but once it is confirmed, how do you handle it?
How have you handled it?
How do you handle it as a fellow player?
How do you handle it as a DM?
When it's obviously "being a jerk behaviour" the party will usually tell the player ooc that what he's doing is a jerk move. Especially for new players who are used to computer RPGs they may be used to doing whatever is the most outrageous to see what happens. I will explain to them (or better yet let one of the players explain) how Society functions.
The talk is the same whether I am a player or a GM.
Listen. PFS Organized Play relies on everyone being a team and being considerate of the other players. Taking actions that upset every other player at the table means no one is going to want to play with you. You may have an excellent backstory about how your character hates elves/is a pyromaniac/is the world's greatest seducer but that doesn't mean you should attempt to kill Kreighton Shane during the mission briefing/set fire to the shop while your party is protecting the proprietor from thugs/flirt with the princess while the party is gathering information from her about her kidnapped baby. Those things may be fun for you but they are extremely annoying to the party and may cause you to get less than full rewards on your mission. Which in turn makes the players even more angry at you.
Instead try to express your individuality in ways that don't throw a monkey wrench into things. Coup-de-gras that dirty Drow/build a campfire that can be seen all the way to the Mordant Spire/see how grateful the princess's sister is when you return her nephew.
There are some players who simply won't play if they don't get to do chaotic things. (Chaotic in the sense of deliberately disrupting the adventure, not alignment-based.) I personally have never had to give more than a warning. Some people decide OP is not for them. Others understand and tone it down.
If it continues, report it to a VO. I know of people being banned from public games in an area because they refused to abide by the social contract.
|
I don't either.
Having played both scenarios, there are ways around the situation in either case while still staying in character.
Lawful good is not lawful stupid. The code does not require suicidal blind charges, especially if it might get other innocents killed.
Absolute worst case scenario, I would eat that atonement without hesitation, and whatever else the GM feels is appropriate. That's the risk I accepted when I chose to play the character.
I emphasize "chose". I choose what my character does, not the other way around.
-k
(For the record, the paladin/oracle worships Qi Zhong, Tien deity of healing. He runs a free clinic out of a wagon. I have had him do things like stay outside instead of entering a brothel or similar den of iniquity with the party. I also play a Vudrani paladin monk of Irori. On that character I have, in fact, accepted atonement and penance for behavior, due to fact that if he had acted differently the party would have failed, likely imprisoned, and as he saw it other innocent lives would have been imperiled.)
(bolding mine) Why? is entering a brothel an evil act? or Unlawful?
(edit) expanding on this question... Jason Wu, did your paladin choose to "...stay outside instead of entering a brothel..." to avoid coming into conflict with his fellow PCs?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Typically when I hear the words "Sorry, but it's what my character would do" it is almost always in regards to something the rest of the party isn't going to like. If you find yourself saying these words, think about what you're doing before you do it and take the other players into consideration.
|
|
So I was responding to the idea that those situations would force the PC to act in a certain way or risk atonement. My argument was that there is multiple ways to act in a situation and that you can still follow your religion's tenants without forcing the hand of the rest of the party.That being said...
Yes, I am saying that not going along with the group is being a jerk.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. There can very definitely be cases where going along with the party (by which I mean actively aiding the party) would require an atonement. The party would have to be acting in an egregious manner and be unwilling to compromise but the possibility very definitely exists.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I am saying that not going along with the group is being a jerk. If the rest of the group wants to try method A, and you go along with method B despite knowing that it will invalidate method A, you are being a jerk.
To hell it is.
There are limits to any good idea and that includes cooperation. Your character has a personality and intrinsic values that are not up for a vote, otherwise they wouldn't be your character.
|
|
As someone who loves to play the characters with traits that often live on the line between funny and annoying, I do what I can to read the table and back off on the voices/antics when I can see it's impacting the rest of the table's fun. Sometimes I can't pick up on it and I need someone to let me know, in which case I'm thankful for it because I sometimes get wrapped up in quoting Minsc for my Suli Paladin of Shylen, or doing the overly dramatic/Shakespearian 90's cartoon Storm voice for my Undine Druid.
Not everyone is going to pick up on the table's reaction to what they see as good fun (hopefully). Sometimes they haven't considered that they might be breaking the "Don't be a dick" rule of gaming. I would suggest side-barring them during a pee break and letting them know how their RP is riding that line and, if they insist on "But that's my character", ask them if there is a way they can express that character's position without breaking the golden rule of gaming.
If they continue, I would remind them that the society (in world) wouldn't stand for those kind of antics and the PFS (real world) rules reflect that and have rules to deal with it, up to and including kicking them out. The entire time I'd try to find a happy middle ground for their RPing. "How can you be the heel you so strongly want to be but still make this a positive experience for everyone involved?".
If they still want to be an ass then, whelp, goodbye.
|
|
So I was responding to the idea that those situations would force the PC to act in a certain way or risk atonement. My argument was that there is multiple ways to act in a situation and that you can still follow your religion's tenants without forcing the hand of the rest of the party.That being said...
Yes, I am saying that not going along with the group is being a jerk.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. There can very definitely be cases where going along with the party (by which I mean actively aiding the party) would require an atonement. The party would have to be acting in an egregious manner and be unwilling to compromise but the possibility very definitely exists.
The bolded part you've added into my argument. There are certainly going to be times when actively aiding the party is going to break a tenant. It's a time-honored tradition that when you want to go beat up the guy and get information out of him, or break into someone's house to steal the document, someone goes and distracts the paladin so he doesn't know.
I'm not saying you always have to actively aid the party, but you never have to actively go against the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have had him do things like stay outside instead of entering a brothel or similar den of iniquity with the party.(bolding mine) Why? is entering a brothel an evil act? or Unlawful?
(edit) expanding on this question... Jason Wu, did your paladin choose to "...stay outside instead of entering a brothel..." to avoid coming into conflict with his fellow PCs?
In character, he's young and easily flustered and since the party was just supposed to be gathering information there, on the rest of the party's advice he elected to stay outside to watch the street.
Out of character, I knew it would probably cause issues and derail the scene if I had him enter and act in-character with his particular morality set.
So I had in and out of character reasons not to cause problems.
-j
|
|
I have had him do things like stay outside instead of entering a brothel or similar den of iniquity with the party.(bolding mine) Why? is entering a brothel an evil act? or Unlawful?
(edit) expanding on this question... Jason Wu, did your paladin choose to "...stay outside instead of entering a brothel..." to avoid coming into conflict with his fellow PCs?
In character, he's young and easily flustered and since the party was just supposed to be gathering information there, on the rest of the party's advice he elected to stay outside to watch the street.
Out of character, I knew it would probably cause issues and derail the scene if I had him enter and act in-character with his particular morality set.
So I had in and out of character reasons not to cause problems.
-j
(in character): Darlin', Ah just wanted to be sure that you wouldn't have a problem if we were ever teamed together, that is say, a problem with my Profession...
[ooc](OOC): just checking, as I have encountered a Judge who had a real problem with a Harlot PC... It's good to see it would be an "IC RP Thing" and we could play it up as "fun social interaction" rather than actual conflict.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I am saying that not going along with the group is being a jerk. If the rest of the group wants to try method A, and you go along with method B despite knowing that it will invalidate method A, you are being a jerk.To hell it is.
There are limits to any good idea and that includes cooperation. Your character has a personality and intrinsic values that are not up for a vote, otherwise they wouldn't be your character.
I agree, your character has a personality, and no one can take that away from him or her. But there's two big reasons why that doesn't excuse your actions.
The first is that everyone has to do things they don't like to do. Does it suck? Sure does! That's part of cooperation, a central tenant to the society that your character joined. If they disagree with that tenant, then why are they a Pathfinder?
Secondly, let's be absolutely clear what the problem is here. When someone complains about you being a jerk, this is an out-of-character problem. Your in-character actions are causing out-of-character problems. Your IC actions can cause all the IC party strife you want - there are plenty of characters that my characters don't like because of IC actions. But as soon as you cause a group of players to stop having fun or become really frustrated, it's your problem.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first is that everyone has to do things they don't like to do. Does it suck? Sure does! That's part of cooperation, a central tenant to the society that your character joined. If they disagree with that tenant, then why are they a Pathfinder?
Because there are limits to any good idea, and cooperation is a two way street. If you're working with a druid in the party YOU have to cooperate with THEM even if there are three of you and one of him. It doesn't matter how good a plan burning down the forest is they're going to rightfully object.
Secondly, let's be absolutely clear what the problem is here. When someone complains about you being a jerk, this is an out-of-character problem. Your in-character actions are causing out-of-character problems. Your IC actions can cause all the IC party strife you want - there are plenty of characters that my characters don't like because of IC actions. But as soon as you cause a group of players to stop having fun or become really frustrated, it's your problem.
Just because someone's complaining doesn't automatically mean that the complaint is valid.
|
|
I'm not saying you always have to actively aid the party, but you never have to actively go against the party.
Then we are in violent agreement :-). My paladin would, at worst, walk away.
In case it wasn't clear : I genuinely didn't realize that was your position. I added that caveat to make sure that we weren't talking past each other, NOT as an attempt to put words into your mouth.
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
Has anyone experienced this?
A player does something, um, asinine or otherwise troublesome, looks at you, and says "Sorry, it's what my character would do."
If so, what did you do, as a player?
What did you do, as a DM?
If what ever the action of "Sorry, it's what my character would do." violates the Wil Wheaton rule (or Paizo PVP rule) then I am GM normally will step in.
This came up more for me in the early era of of PFS factions missions when people would attempt to ruin the other faction missions when the factions were competing more.
|
|
It seems some are saying that if you act first you are not a jerk, but if you oppose that first suggestion then you are a jerk. If you set up a situation where the Paladin will bot participate you are not a jerk, but the Paladin is for not compromising.
Why d some people think that being passive-aggressive is not being a jerk, but responding to passive-aggression is?
|
|
Because there are limits to any good idea, and cooperation is a two way street. If you're working with a druid in the party YOU have to cooperate with THEM even if there are three of you and one of him. It doesn't matter how good a plan burning down the forest is they're going to rightfully object.
The first is that everyone has to do things they don't like to do. Does it suck? Sure does! That's part of cooperation, a central tenant to the society that your character joined. If they disagree with that tenant, then why are they a Pathfinder?
I'm sorry, I realized that I have some assumptions I'm making about the situation that I'm not communicating. My assumption about the situation is that the party is communicating with each other, they are aware of your religious tenants, and they came up with a course of action that doesn't involve break any of the PFS tenants, committing an evil act, doing anything incredibly stupid, or doing something that would be racist, sexist, transmisogynist, etc. I agree that the party should be keeping your religious tenants/system of morals/whatever you use to make decisions in mind, in the end those tenants do not have a veto over the group's actions.
I would hope that if the party were to do something as stupid as burning down a forest, the GM would also intervene. Same thing with something evil.
Secondly, let's be absolutely clear what the problem is here. When someone complains about you being a jerk, this is an out-of-character problem. Your in-character actions are causing out-of-character problems. Your IC actions can cause all the IC party strife you want - there are plenty of characters that my characters don't like because of IC actions. But as soon as you cause a group of players to stop having fun or become really frustrated, it's your problem.Just because someone's complaining doesn't automatically mean that the complaint is valid.
No, but unless you are doing what you're doing because your feeling uncomfortable at the table, or the players are trying to do something in my list of exceptions above, you're the problem and I'll be expecting you to change your behavior.
I mean, sure, we are human beings and I'm sure that you could come up with some esoteric situation in which the single person is right that's not in my list above. And I don't care, because there's a GM at the table who we entrust to have some common sense and deal with the situation. It doesn't disprove the point that your character's morals are not more important than the fun of the players.
EDIT: @pauljathome - fair enough. Sorry for reading more malice than what was there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if it comes down to an unavoidable choice of either staying in character and being the jerk, or completely breaking character to avoid it... break character. Suck it up, bite your lip, maybe even mention that it's not in character if you must. It's hopefully just one incident, just get past it and move on.Jason:
I took a quick look at your profile and saw that you have an Oracle/Paladin. I don't know what your deity is but I need to warn you that there are situations that arise in scenarios (that I know of) where your character will need an atonement cast or lose your paladin powers if you follow your own advice.
Uhh... no. Judges are advised that PFS guidelines,
especially the no Player PVP rulesupersede all other considerations, including Paladin Self Destruct mechanics.
(I removed your "especially the no Player PVP rule" line because no one is suggesting that is OK. That's a red herring.)
Can you please cite me a source that says "If a paladin takes an action against her code (or violates her code by inaction) she does not need an atonement as long as the rest of the party wanted her to take that action?
The closest I can find is the section on alignment infractions (which is where the phrase '"That's just what my character would do" is not a defense for behaving like a jerk' appears). The next paragraph says a player about to violate their tenents gets a free warning. Not a get-off-scott-free card.
The bottom line of my argument is that even if the party wants to negotiate with an undead, the inquisitor of Pharasma is not "being a jerk" because he decides to attack the undead instead. He's being a faithful inquisitor of Pharasma.
There are lots of threads about how hard it is to play a paladin in Society and how it often costs you - and your party - both in rewards and opportunities. I don't disagree with the people who say Paladins aren't a good fit for Society play. But they are an allowed class so we have to work within their strictures as well as PFSRPG.
My LG monk was extremely uncomfortable through much of Destiny of the Sands part 1. This didn't stop him from helping the party, he just focused on providing the aid he could. Afterwards, I've carefully looked at every scenario description before deciding if one of my characters will work in that scenario (for instance, when I saw a scenario that involved infiltrating Aspis, I knew Voren wouldn't work so I didn't sign up).
I have played a character that clearly wasn't Pathfinder agent material, and I never played him again (he was so traumatized, he transferred to the archives).
|
|
I was in a game once and the player just went off and attacked an ally in a room. The ally was known to be on our side and even gave us gifts. It was in the middle of the dungeon crawl the player excepted the rest of the party to help him in the combat, instead we shut the door and moved on in a different direction.
He survived but just barely, after that he decided sticking with the party was a healthier strategy.
|
|
I mean, sure, we are human beings and I'm sure that you could come up with some esoteric situation in which the single person is right
That "esoteric" reason and VERY long list of things you haven't covered is called is having morals, ethics, mores, drives, background, motivations and the gods forbid a personality in a role playing game.
It doesn't disprove the point that your character's morals are not more important than the fun of the players.
Role playing your characters personality is part of the fun of the game.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Role playing your characters personality is part of the fun of the game.
Only up to the point where it starts to detract from the fun of the other people around the table. I don't care how much fun you're having; if your fun comes at the expense of everybody else's enjoyment of the game I'm going to ask you to go and have your fun somewhere else.
|
|
Role playing your characters personality is part of the fun of the game.Only up to the point where it starts to detract from the fun of the other people around the table. I don't care how much fun you're having; if your fun comes at the expense of everybody else's enjoyment of the game I'm going to ask you to go and have your fun somewhere else.
Its a balancing act. Its not the only consideration but it is a pretty big consideration. Everyone is after all, a player trying to have fun. That includes the person in the minority. Magnitude counts as much as quantity, especially when it comes to what you do with your own character.
Its also entirely possible to ruin someone elses fun by doing some pretty innocuous things.
"Why aren't you helping me murderhobo!" *tableflip*
"You lost your accent! *flip!?*
"Stay in the back and heal me Druid! ... Don't you know party basics! *table flip*
"you're taking your full attacks instead of setting up my flanks! I want to flank! *tableflip*
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players are responsible for their characters’ actions. Killing an innocent, wanton destruction, and other acts that can be construed as evil by the GM may be considered alignment infractions. “That’s just what my character would do” is not a defense for behaving like a jerk.
|
|
I mean, sure, we are human beings and I'm sure that you could come up with some esoteric situation in which the single person is right
That "esoteric" reason and VERY long list of things you haven't covered is called is having morals, ethics, mores, drives, background, motivations and the gods forbid a personality in a role playing game.
It doesn't disprove the point that your character's morals are not more important than the fun of the players.Role playing your characters personality is part of the fun of the game.
BNW I really don't understand the position you are taking in this thread. You seem to be saying it's ok to be a jerk? Not only is it ok, but if it is in-character you are required to be a jerk to maintain your characters integrity? Is that really your position?
Jerk is easy to define. Are your actions actively contributing to diminishing the enjoyment of the game for another person? Yes, then you are being a jerk and need to reign it in.
It is more than possible to have two or more jerks actively annoying each other, and both/all need to reign it in. That's where communication comes in.
Nobody is saying you can't hold a strong view, but it is each players responsibility to decide what their character would do when those values take them outside the active enjoyment of the rest of the table. Being a jerk is when those choices actively diminish the enjoyment of the rest of the table. This means that, no the Pharasmin cannot hold the rest of the party to ransom over whether to speak with dead. It is the Pharasmins responsibility to decide what to do in a way that does not undermine the wishes of the rest of the party, and ideally in a way that is as close to in character as possible. It is never OK for one players "it's what my character would do" to diminish the fun of the rest of the table.
When establishing a strong thematic character plan some outs in case you come across a situation that puts you in direct conflict with the rest of the party, even if that is a loudly expressed - "I cannot condone this behaviour, but if you insist on this course I must retire to another room and leave you to it" If things go south for the party when it erupts into a fight step in to save them with some self-righteous "if you had listened to me in the first place...". If they are losing a fight against someone who should be an ally, step in and tell them it's time to stand down and try to re-enter negotiations.
There should always be a way to establish your character and not be a jerk.
If even that is beyond your character then it is probably not a good fit for being a Pathfinder.
To answer the original question, I would always talk to the player first and find out whether they realise how disruptive/unreasonable their chosen course of action is, and how little "it's what my character would do" is a defence to that chosen course.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
BNW I really don't understand the position you are taking in this thread. You seem to be saying it's ok to be a jerk? Not only is it ok, but if it is in-character you are required to be a jerk to maintain your characters integrity? Is that really your position?
Jerk is easy to define. Are your actions actively contributing to diminishing the enjoyment of the game for another person? Yes, then you are being a jerk and need to reign it in
My position is that that definition is bonkers.
People can, and will, get upset over very small reasons, nothing at all, or basically any action or inaction you could possibly take. Trying to cater to them all is not only irrational, its outright impossible because other people are going to want different things.
The why aren't you helping me murder hobo line is a pretty accurate paraphrase for a number of occasions.
Is healing/buffing an NPC considered PVP?
If not and a player goes murderhobo just heal and buff the NPCs he is killing without your consent.
|
Venture-Agent, Florida–Altamonte Springs
|
Personally, I'm there to have fun and unless the GM forces me to react (do something or you will have to pay for an atonement) I let things slide. PFS is not my home game. There really is not party cohesion at PFS when 4-7 random players are at a table so you have to roll with it.
In my Iron Gods game one player made an anti-tech character. After the first book he realized that his character did not fit the party. So, he switched characters, that was his choice, especially since the rest of the party was specifically setting up defenses against the Ghost Wolf Clan.
I've also had other players who staunchly played their characters until they died. One player was playing a "vow of poverty warforge monk" in a 3.5 savage tide campaign....he was a pacifist and argued fighting and killing anything, including the T-rex who ate him, he survived (thanks to the combatants) only to later get killed by a demon he was trying to negotiate peace terms.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder at what point is the party is being jerks towards the individual?
The answer to that question is going to be different in every situation, which is why the guide does not try to break down every instance of jerkitude. The campaign expects GMs and players to use their best judgement.
|
|
The mods need to be written better where one murder hobo in the group isn't costing everyone lost prestige and half the party a faction mission.
I have two scenarios in a row where I have lost out on faction missions because one PC just has to murder hobo. Even when asked over and over by 4 out of 6 players - "please don't do that."
And if I can't PVP to stop it then the scenario needs to call out only the murder hobo gets the negative boon/curse what have you.
Edit: to make it pertinent the "it's what my character would do" was thrown around quite a bit.
And this kind of thing is where GMs need to step in. I'm always surprised by how limited a lot of people think the 'no PvP' rule is.
If the group has decided on a course of action, and are pursuing that course, and an individual decides "No, I'm going to do X instead, even though it will completely screw up what everyone else is doing", then that's PvP just as surely as if that lone player had attacked the group. And PvP is against the rules.
It's fine for a lone PC to refuse to support an action. They can stand aside if 'that's what the character would do'. But actively working against the party is PvP, and thus, unacceptable.
I'll give an example from my own play history. There was a rather violent wizard in our party who convinced everyone except my cleric that the best way to get a piece of information was to start a bar fight while setting the bar on fire, thus resulting in the potential for a lot of people being hurt or killed. My cleric refused to accept this. So, the party started the fight. My cleric waited outside, and healed any fleeing civilians as they ran out. This was not PvP, even though it was going against the group. Had my cleric instead decided that she would go find the city watch and get the party arrested, that would have been PvP, and would have been unacceptable.
PvP isn't only about not attacking each other. It's about not screwing each other in ways that hamper completion of the mission. Argue? Fine. Oppose minor actions? Fine. Deliberately sabotage the way the party has decided to deal with the required task at hand? NOT OK.
|
|
And if your cleric had decided on a whole lot of create water?Then you are actively not cooperative which is against the pathfinder tenetsThis is insane. Refusing to co-operate with some lunatic plan, indeed actively working against it, is not against the societies tenets simply because the rest of the group think it is a good idea.
Co-operate is an ideal, it is not a straight jacket to force people to follow the loudest/most popular idea regardless of how idiotic it might be.
This would actually fall into 'Meta-Escalation'. The players inside know they're trying to put the place to the torch, the player outside ISN'T doing that, and it's becoming REALLY HARD TO BURN THE PLACE.
It doesn't take a logic leap to gather what the next reaction would be to stubborn narrow-minded sorts. And then the argument would begin of 'We're not PvPing, we're just trying to work together and do the thing we said we're going to do!'
I've played a handful of earlier scenarios where it looked like the original design was 'Murder all the opponents, let Pharasma sort them all out'.
And then I've played a handful of later seasons where the BRIEFING was 'We had some real idiots on staff, try not to be an idiot and play nice with the locals, would you?'
With that sort of approach, it's not a wonder that some folks devolve to 'murderhobo' (which at the higher levels should be called 'murdereccentric' because the players are carrying more wealth in their equipment than the whole community they're engaging in some cases) and others are very firmly set on the 'We can talk anyone down! (Diplomancy!)
The trick in organized play is to get A. The players to understand that both options may be needed at some point, and B. not tromple over the party members who can see a better way of doing things.
Also, just saying, I've been in a scenario where the players were hesitantly following an unconventional diplomacy route for the first several encounters, and then really started playing it up, and had so much fun at it that when unavoidable combat reared its head, we were all kind of jarred by it.
Oooh.
There's a question.
RAW and RAI..
If the *scenario* is written to push the players into 'being jerks', is it the fault of the players to take the bait, since that's how the scenario is written? If they don't, are they being jerks for going against the intended nature of the module?
|
|
Only up to the point where it starts to detract from the fun of the other people around the table. I don't care how much fun you're having; if your fun comes at the expense of everybody else's enjoyment of the game I'm going to ask you to go and have your fun somewhere else.
This might be the clearest, best statement on the subject I've ever seen. I'm screenshotting this and putting it in my GM binder. And my player folders. And hanging it on my wall. And maybe getting it as a tattoo. And... And... And...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been reading this thread without comment, but I think I have something potentially worth-while to add.
Once we get into a situation where characters are working against each other's goals, we need to step back and check with the players. They may be cool with that.
Example: I'm running a play-by-post PFS adventure right now, and two Dark Archive / Cheliax-through-and-through characters have just done something that the Liberty's Edge and Silver Crusade characters find appalling. It could be very tense.
But the players are noting that it's their characters who are squabbling, and they're all good with role-playing how the conflict will resolve itself. If that's the case with the paladin versus the other players, then cool.
--
If the players are getting tense at each other, I think it's a mistake to try to find an in-world GM ruling that addresses the situation. My recommendation is to pause the game and get people to talk to one another out-of-character and get some perspective. it may be something that requires the GM to intervene -- "I know you're new to the campaign, but I wanted to make sure you understood that just trying to stir up trouble isn't what this is all about."
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Players are responsible for their characters’ actions. Killing an innocent, wanton destruction, and other acts that can be construed as evil by the GM may be considered alignment infractions. “That’s just what my character would do” is not a defense for behaving like a jerk.
Yup.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am once again reminded of my party barely managing to talk an enraged dragon out of just outright eating us, only to have the one PC who'd been keeping silent up til then open up and insult the dragon's lineage.
We pretty much let the dragon eat him.
-k