According to the rules, you roll a secret deception check vs their passive perception DC, unless they have a special skill feat that would make it a different check (like the lie to me skill feat). If the issue is that you are worried they will hear you roll, you can make a number of rolls in advance of the conversation or make a habbit of rolling all the time anyway so that it doesn't necessarily mean that you are obviously making that check and not a secret knowledge check about something the NPC is telling them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing is, IMO, players don't need to use sense motive to say "I don't trust what they're saying. I can't pinpoint anything as being off but I've got a bad feeling about this person".
That's RP, and no dice roll should prohibit that choice.
As for how to mechanically run sense motive vs deception, it's not an active check on the players part. Sense motive will clue them in that something isn't right on the part of the NPC they're interacting with. Though not anything more specific than that. You don't know they're lying necessarily, it could be that they're withholding information (some people see that as a lie by omission others do not) or it could be that they're being forced to do something under duress or many other possibilities.
How to run it though? Make the checks in secret. Most of us are playing over virtual table tops nowadays so it's relatively easy to make a secret check at the appropriate time. If your group still likes to use physical dice you can still roll a secret check at the time, but the group may see you rolling with no knowledge of why. And if you want to avoid even that, you can pre-roll some rolls if you know they're coming up.
Effectively your players do get to be walking lie detectors, but the way that plays out is that rolls are secret and you make them, so you only need to make them when a NPC is trying to conceal something from the PCs.
The other thing is, IMO, players don't need to use sense motive to say "I don't trust what they're saying. I can't pinpoint anything as being off but I've got a bad feeling about this person".
That's RP, and no dice roll should prohibit that choice.
As for how to mechanically run sense motive vs deception, it's not an active check on the players part. Sense motive will clue them in that something isn't right on the part of the NPC they're interacting with. Though not anything more specific than that. You don't know they're lying necessarily, it could be that they're withholding information (some people see that as a lie by omission others do not) or it could be that they're being forced to do something under duress or many other possibilities.
How to run it though? Make the checks in secret. Most of us are playing over virtual table tops nowadays so it's relatively easy to make a secret check at the appropriate time. If your group still likes to use physical dice you can still roll a secret check at the time, but the group may see you rolling with no knowledge of why. And if you want to avoid even that, you can pre-roll some rolls if you know they're coming up.
Effectively your players do get to be walking lie detectors, but the way that plays out is that rolls are secret and you make them, so you only need to make them when a NPC is trying to conceal something from the PCs.
Actually, Sense Motive is indeed an active check on the players part. It has the action symbol, and it specifies the player picks a target. The passive equivalent of Sense Motive is when an NPC uses a Lie action, they need to roll Deception against your Perception DC.
That said, I've found you do sometimes need to prompt players to Sense Motive, especially when running APs. And I do think they are less inclined to do it now that they can't see the results.
Don't tell my players this, but I actually run it differently. Whether the PCs believe something or not is up to the player in my opinion, so my NPCs don't use the Lie action. If the player is suspicious, they will say they use Sense Motive, which I compare against the Deception DC of the NPC if they're lying (or maybe the Diplomacy DC if the NPC is telling the truth, haven't figured this out yet). If they succeed, the PC will see signs that the NPC is nervous, making s%#+ up, or otherwise that something is up. If they interact with the NPC for some time or if the PCs would otherwise reasonably see that something is happening (like three halflings in a trenchcoat or something) I will just ask the PC to make a Perception check without them knowing it's a Sense Motive check.
Just like NPCs can't change the PCs attitude with Make an Impression and the like, they can't cause the PCs to believe something or not with the Lie action in my opinion. But I think this is not RAW.
I think the important part here is to realize the very different statistics involved.
If you let each player make an active check (a roll), the probability of at least one of them succeeding is very large. In fact, this completely skewers the intended difficulty.
This is why something like this - in noncombat social situations - is best handled by the target making the Deception check (the Lie action).
One roll against many passive DCs provide the intended probability, where many rolls against a single DC would make it far easier to detect the lie than intended.
Note how Sense Motive has an action cost (of 1 action). This should tell you the activity is balanced for that cost actually being a real cost. In other words, when used in Encounter mode, where you roll Initiative and count actions.
In a noncombat social scenario, the cost of a 1-action activity is effectively zero, and you should hesitate to allow the players just bombarding the NPCs with Sense Motive actions.
I am not sure this is quite right either. A single player character can't bombard a single NPC with multiple Sense Motive checks. But nothing stops every player character from asking for a single Sense Motive check against every NPC they meet. The thing is they have to actually DO it. And given players no longer know what they rolled and can form false impressions on critical failures, there tend to be a lot less piling on to all roll against the same character.
Actually, Sense Motive is indeed an active check on the players part. It has the action symbol, and it specifies the player picks a target. The passive equivalent of Sense Motive is when an NPC uses a Lie action, they need to roll Deception against your Perception DC.
That said, I've found you do sometimes need to prompt players to Sense Motive, especially when running APs. And I do think they are less inclined to do it now that they can't see the results.
My bad, I was thinking more of PF1.
So yeah, sense motive is it's own specific action.
Which honestly doesn't make that much sense to me in most situations. In general I find that "attempting to see if someone is being honest/concealing something" is more of a passive action on my part, while sense motive indicates an active role.
I'm honestly not sure when it's appropriate to use, as generally I'm going to rely on the passive check of "Deception vs Perception".
Actually, Sense Motive is indeed an active check on the players part. It has the action symbol, and it specifies the player picks a target. The passive equivalent of Sense Motive is when an NPC uses a Lie action, they need to roll Deception against your Perception DC.
That said, I've found you do sometimes need to prompt players to Sense Motive, especially when running APs. And I do think they are less inclined to do it now that they can't see the results.
My bad, I was thinking more of PF1.
So yeah, sense motive is it's own specific action.
Which honestly doesn't make that much sense to me in most situations. In general I find that "attempting to see if someone is being honest/concealing something" is more of a passive action on my part, while sense motive indicates an active role.
I'm honestly not sure when it's appropriate to use, as generally I'm going to rely on the passive check of "Deception vs Perception".
Generally, I think you were on the right track with what you said about RP before. You roll when an NPC does or says something that raises your suspicions. From the players side it is pretty straightforward, it is just less powerful than PF1 where you knew how well you rolled and there weren't meaningful restrictions on how often you rolled.
It is a little harder for the GM, who needs to decide how suspicious to roleplay an NPC, whether to prompt players to roll Sense Motive or roll it secretly for them sometimes, what sort of circumstance modifiers to apply for plausibility, and so forth.
It's still not abundantly clear to me when Sense Motive should be utilized instead of the Deception vs Percpetion DC check. I know Sense Motive indicates active scrutiny by the PCs, while the Perception DC check is a passive action.
However, actively Sensing Motive just doesn't make sense to me. Unless you're questioning them and trying to get them to say stuff that contradicts other statements they've made.
It's still not abundantly clear to me when Sense Motive should be utilized instead of the Deception vs Percpetion DC check. I know Sense Motive indicates active scrutiny by the PCs, while the Perception DC check is a passive action.
However, actively Sensing Motive just doesn't make sense to me. Unless you're questioning them and trying to get them to say stuff that contradicts other statements they've made.
That's something you can do, though doing it without RP calls for the Lie to Me feat.
But actively studying someone for weird behavior is absolutely a thing you can choose to do. This is basically the basis for things like poker, fictional police interrogations and so forth. And remember, Sense Motive doesn't tell you if a specific thing a character said is a lie. It tells you if there is something off with that character's actions. Maybe it is the way their eyes flit about, or a nervous tick, or the fact that they keep their hands below the bar, or just have defensive body language.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, as a GM, you have to decide if your social encounters are intended as nuanced encounters with multiple levels of "success" possible on the part of the players, or if they are supposed to just be quick little movements between other kinds of encounters.
A lot of players feel like they should be entitled to just keep pressing an NPC for information until they are satisfied with the information they get from the person, but just look at how faulty interrogations are in the real world and how long people will go without saying anything, combined with how quickly people will grow resistant to people asking questions that make them uncomfortable, even if they have no reason to really be worried about what the person is asking them.
I try to use sense motive as more of a guide for whether the party wants to keep investigating a person, rather than a "this person is lying, let's punch them again until they want to tell us the truth" meter.
It would be cool if we got more guidance on pulling this off in APs, with NPCs having a list of false information they try to pass off before letting slip useful details. Maybe they did in the Agents of Edgewatch, but I have been avoiding reading those, since I hope one day to play it.
Those kind of details are difficult to have ready on the fly though.
Yeah, as a GM, you have to decide if your social encounters are intended as nuanced encounters with multiple levels of "success" possible on the part of the players, or if they are supposed to just be quick little movements between other kinds of encounters.
A lot of players feel like they should be entitled to just keep pressing an NPC for information until they are satisfied with the information they get from the person, but just look at how faulty interrogations are in the real world and how long people will go without saying anything, combined with how quickly people will grow resistant to people asking questions that make them uncomfortable, even if they have no reason to really be worried about what the person is asking them.
I try to use sense motive as more of a guide for whether the party wants to keep investigating a person, rather than a "this person is lying, let's punch them again until they want to tell us the truth" meter.
It would be cool if we got more guidance on pulling this off in APs, with NPCs having a list of false information they try to pass off before letting slip useful details. Maybe they did in the Agents of Edgewatch, but I have been avoiding reading those, since I hope one day to play it.
Those kind of details are difficult to have ready on the fly though.
Yeah. Age of Ashes has some moments where Sense Motive checks are called out,and presumably things the players can roll unprompted. But I think that's the exception and sort of "this needs to happen to move the plot along" kind of things.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My understanding is that when someone specifically tells a lie, they are the active party and roll Deception. Using Sense Motive actively is more to get a general sense of "is he being forthright with us / being sketchy / under a mental effect", and not so much "was that specific statement true?".
It's still not abundantly clear to me when Sense Motive should be utilized instead of the Deception vs Percpetion DC check. I know Sense Motive indicates active scrutiny by the PCs, while the Perception DC check is a passive action.
However, actively Sensing Motive just doesn't make sense to me. Unless you're questioning them and trying to get them to say stuff that contradicts other statements they've made.
That's something you can do, though doing it without RP calls for the Lie to Me feat.
But actively studying someone for weird behavior is absolutely a thing you can choose to do. This is basically the basis for things like poker, fictional police interrogations and so forth. And remember, Sense Motive doesn't tell you if a specific thing a character said is a lie. It tells you if there is something off with that character's actions. Maybe it is the way their eyes flit about, or a nervous tick, or the fact that they keep their hands below the bar, or just have defensive body language.
I understand and agree with your last paragraph for sure, but that's my problem. To me you observe all of that reactively. It's not typically an active action on the part of the PC. That's why I got confused on the Sense Motive vs "passive" Perception DC.
The only time I can think of when sense motive is appropriate is when you're already suspicious of someone and are trying to scrutinize their behavior for inconsistencies. It doesn't necessarily point to lying, simply that their behavior isn't "right".
Also, Lie to Me doesn't do what I was referring to. Lie to Me let's you use your Deception skill, in place of Perception, at least that's its main thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My understanding is that when someone specifically tells a lie, they are the active party and roll Deception. Using Sense Motive actively is more to get a general sense of "is he being forthright with us / being sketchy / under a mental effect", and not so much "was that specific statement true?".
So under your definition it's more a barometer for someone's general trustworthiness and something a PC would likely do once when they encounter a new person they are interacting with.
While that isn't a broad category of use, it is at least more clear when and why you would use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As the GM, you either maintain "no, you don't have anything on this guy" which might make the players actually let go, or you admit there's even a slight crack in the facade, and the players will keep peeling until they find out the truth, or they will simply attack the NPC and let things play out how they usually play out.
In a more social-focused game, nuance might work, but not here.
I understand your position but disagree. It produces more work for the GM, but you can do it even without it being a more "social-focused nuanced" game.
You just have to have the NPC react with disapproval and leave. Avoiding the PCs in general perhaps. Perhaps not doing anything to further their goals for a while to avoid increasing suspicion. If the PCs try to press things, the NPC in question gets other NPCs involved who are already on their side. Pushing back against the PCs action and supporting the questioned NPC. Make the PCs action have consequences when they don't have evidence of the NPCs wrong doings.
And if the PCs do attack the NPC without any evidence of misdeeds, that's what jail is for. And if that means that ultimately the bad guys win, well it's a good lesson for the players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have had a lot of fun when my players all ask to do sense motive checks on something an NPC has said (whether they passed a Deception check against the parties passive perception DC, or were just telling the truth anyway), by rolling all of the checks of players who ask in secret, and then giving their results to each player individually. "two of you believe the guard is telling the truth, but Susan, you see her eyes shift quickly away from your direct gaze and think something might be a foot."
This shifts the math away from 1 person succeeded, we know what the truth is, to something that feel more organically uncertain. The party might want to investigate further before tipping their hand. A whole lot depends on the tone of the campaign you are striving to run. PF2 handles nuanced social encounters very well if you want them, but you don't have to go that route if your players are not interested in solving mysteries.
|
|
My understanding is that when someone specifically tells a lie, they are the active party and roll Deception. Using Sense Motive actively is more to get a general sense of "is he being forthright with us / being sketchy / under a mental effect", and not so much "was that specific statement true?".So under your definition it's more a barometer for someone's general trustworthiness and something a PC would likely do once when they encounter a new person they are interacting with.
While that isn't a broad category of use, it is at least more clear when and why you would use.
It's actually not all that narrow. The Deception check to Lie is mostly about active lies:
You try to fool someone with an untruth.
Merely omitting part of the truth, or speaking a few truths but leaving people to draw a false conclusion from them, doesn't require a check.
However, Sense Motive is broader and vaguer and could detect that someone isn't being quite forthright, even though you don't know exactly what they're being sketchy about.
Also as it turns out, Sense Motive comes up if you go to reconsider some lie that you previously swallowed:
At the GM’s discretion, if a creature initially believes your lie, it might attempt a Perception check later to Sense Motive against your Deception DC to realize it’s a lie. This usually happens if the creature discovers enough evidence to counter your statements.
Note that there has to be some kind of new perspective here, you can't just Sense Motive every time someone opens their mouth in a conversation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only time I can think of when sense motive is appropriate is when you're already suspicious of someone and are trying to scrutinize their behavior for inconsistencies. It doesn't necessarily point to lying, simply that their behavior isn't "right".
Yes, exactly. This is the only time players should call for Sense Motive. And in practice, probably will be, when you get into nitty gritty I will describe below.
Also, Lie to Me doesn't do what I was referring to. Lie to Me let's you use your Deception skill, in place of Perception, at least that's its main thing.
Mechanically, you are correct, but the flavor in how it does so is exactly what you are referring to: "You can use Deception to weave traps to trip up anyone trying to deceive you." Which you can use as a RP strategy, but it is limited to your own cleverness and the GM's ability to improvise the sort of minutia that is probably not pre-written.
I trust that by "not sure this is quite right" you specifically talk about Sense Motive usage, rather than my overall point "be mindful of probabilities"?
I agree with your math and point that you should be mindful of probabilities, but I disagree with the conclusions you draw from it.
Pathfinder 2 is generally great in understanding this math. Stealth is a perfect example - you roll Stealth against a static DC, not against active Perception rolls.
Indeed, and that is how the Lie action works. But Sense Motive is the equivalent of Seek, and like Seek it is a waste of time if you don't have an inkling of where to look in the first place.
That's because asking the GM to roll a secret check for you where you need to relay your Perception modifier is slower than just being able to roll yourself. And there's a 1 in 20 chance (at least) that you critically fail your check and wind up with a false impression, even if the person is on the level. That means that if you roll against every PC you meet, there's a 1 in 20 chance you wind up thinking the fish mnonger is plotting against you and wind up wasting a ton of time and energy on a red herring. (Which, side note, is a pretty accurate representation of how scrutinizing everyone around you in real life like this ends up.)
So in practice, players probably won't bother unless they have reason to be suspicious, and even then the whole group won't necessarily bother. It also means that they can't rule out the possibility that any hunch that someone is suspicious is wrong.
It basically means that as long as there are multiple heroes, no NPC will get away with a lie or deception, unless assisted by magic (or simply much higher level).
Only if the players actually roll Sense Motive, though. Which they likely only do if they are already suspicious, and if that is the case they will probably still be suspicious regardless of the dice rolls.
Also... this is fine. Having NPCs lie to players is something that should be used sparingly, and you shouldn't make plots that can fall apart if the players rolls a nat 20 on a Sense Motive check, or an NPC rolls a Nat 1 to Lie.
If you are running the kind of game where this is common place, it is probably the sort of political intrigue game that supports having law, order, and the ability to enforce them, which means players deciding to dangle anyone they don't like off balconies will have consequences like Claxon outlines.
I understand your position but disagree. It produces more work for the GM, but you can do it even without it being a more "social-focused nuanced" game.
You just have to have the NPC react with disapproval and leave. Avoiding the PCs in general perhaps. Perhaps not doing anything to further their goals for a while to avoid increasing suspicion. If the PCs try to press things, the NPC in question gets other NPCs involved who are already on their side. Pushing back against the PCs action and supporting the questioned NPC. Make the PCs action have consequences when they don't have evidence of the NPCs wrong doings.
And if the PCs do attack the NPC without any evidence of misdeeds, that's what jail is for. And if that means that ultimately the bad guys win, well it's a good lesson for the players.
In my opinion, NPCs get only a single shot at not pinging the radar. One ping, and their plans are ruined or they are actually dead.
Obviously this doesn't apply to games with more social interplay, which is what I meant by "a more social-focused game". Your home campaign, perhaps.
But in something like an official AP, there seldom is opportunity to retreat or deflect. The players are hungry for something to kill, and 9 times out of ten (99 times out of a hundred, actually) this foe that the Adventure Paths puts in the players' path is "level appropriate" - meaning that violence works.
Of course violence usually works, but that doesn't mean you (as a GM) need to let it work the way players want. Sure they kill the NPC. Turns out he was innocent and now you'll be serving years in prison.
To me it's not making a "social focused nuanced" game to force players to have some kind of evidence before killing or otherwise acting out against an NPC. They can be suspicious, but if they go too far in their actions without proof other NPCs are going to react to the PCs action in unfavorable ways.
As for NPCs rarely having the option to retreat or deflect, that's only as true as you let it be. Most NPCs are put there to simply die. Most of the time the players are aware they're the bad guy, there is rarely grey. The amount of times you have an NPC that's actually trying to deceive the PCs into thinking they're not the bad guy has been pretty small in my experience.
And if that means that ultimately the bad guys win, well it's a good lesson for the players.This just reveals you have never seen an official OP. Casually ending the campaign with a bad guy win, that literally never happens.
In a home game, sure, but I'm arguing the rules does not support the game's own adventures here.
So, no, I do not feel the Sense Motive action is well constructed.
It only works in contexts seldom (read practically never) practiced by Paizo's own adventures.
Either the argument is "but Sense Motive only raises suspicion, it doesn't confirm it" to which I say "player characters only need the slightest whiff to go for the kill".
Or the argument just falls apart when analyzed statistically.
Either way - I recommend against using Sense Motive, since it stacks the odds in a way that likely was never intentional. Use the Tell a Lie construct that works like Stealth instead, since it is mathematically much more sound.
Well now you're just being...I dunno. Saying that I've never seen a AP is just a bad faith statement.
Sure, APs aren't written that way, but it doesn't take much effort after your players kill an NPC with no evidence to lock them up and say "Hey, you guys f&+*ed up. You're in jail, and no one else manages to stop the BBEG. His plan goes off and you fail".
I know APs aren't written that way, because it's not a fun ending for players. But if you want to teach your players to be less murder hobos, sometimes you have to TEACH them to not be murder hobos by making their actions have consequences.
If your (not you specifically but any generic GM) players always resort to violence, it's likely because you've always allowed unrestrained violence to work without significant consequence.
I understand your position but disagree. It produces more work for the GM, but you can do it even without it being a more "social-focused nuanced" game.
You just have to have the NPC react with disapproval and leave. Avoiding the PCs in general perhaps. Perhaps not doing anything to further their goals for a while to avoid increasing suspicion. If the PCs try to press things, the NPC in question gets other NPCs involved who are already on their side. Pushing back against the PCs action and supporting the questioned NPC. Make the PCs action have consequences when they don't have evidence of the NPCs wrong doings.
And if the PCs do attack the NPC without any evidence of misdeeds, that's what jail is for. And if that means that ultimately the bad guys win, well it's a good lesson for the players.
In my opinion, NPCs get only a single shot at not pinging the radar. One ping, and their plans are ruined or they are actually dead.
Obviously this doesn't apply to games with more social interplay, which is what I meant by "a more social-focused game". Your home campaign, perhaps.
But in something like an official AP, there seldom is opportunity to retreat or deflect. The players are hungry for something to kill, and 9 times out of ten (99 times out of a hundred, actually) this foe that the Adventure Paths puts in the players' path is "level appropriate" - meaning that violence works.
Of course violence usually works, but that doesn't mean you (as a GM) need to let it work the way players want. Sure they kill the NPC. Turns out he was innocent and now you'll be serving years in prison.
To me it's not making a "social focused nuanced" game to force players to have some kind of evidence before killing or otherwise acting out against an NPC. They can be suspicious, but if they go too far in their actions without proof other NPCs are going to react to the PCs action in unfavorable ways.
As for NPCs rarely having the option to retreat or deflect, that's...
For what it is worth Claxon, you are correct. Not only that, but APs don't actually have the problem Zapp describes, even if you run the rules as written, for pretty much the reasons I outline. They just don't make APs that hinge upon players failing a Sense Motive check. The closest I've seen them come is an NPCs whose cover got blown just by asking about him with a Sending spell, not a Sense Motive check. And even that basically came across as the villain being a dumb dumb and not covering his trail, and APs do tend to hinge upon a certain level of villainous incompetence.
NPCs secrets are made to be discovered, basically. If you don't actuaklg want players discovering them you can just not have the players meet or spend much time with the relevant character.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't agree with Zapp's misgivings.
First, let's recall that the Lie action says that if the NPC successfully lies, the listeners believe this person is speaking (what they believe to be) the truth. You can use a Sense Motive later on to reappraise the statement, but only if you get new evidence of some kind. So you can't instantly Sense Motive everything someone says.
Second, I think there's a difference between "is Sense Motive designed well" and "does subterfuge just really suck in some (your?) adventures". I don't really see any glaring design goofs in Sense Motive. But there are definite problems in the adventure:
- Only bad guys ever try to lie to the PCs.
- Apparently catching someone in a lie is enough grounds to attack them.
- The justice system isn't allowed to interfere with PCs on the plot railroad.
- The adventure might be written so that it doesn't actually expect the NPC's lie to work, and might actually get derailed if the PCs don't see through it. (Sometimes, sending an NPC at the PCs with an untenable lie is just a way to throw them under the bus so that the PCs can find a clue on their rapidly cooling corpse.)
Some of this may be AP writing, but I think it's also amplified by how the GM picks it up.
You can say "but if the PCs kill the person on the street for lying to them, and the guard locks them up, that'll break the adventure". Well, it wasn't the adventure forcing the PCs to just kill someone on the streets. This is just players choosing to be murderhobos.
You probably don't want to bring the whole campaign to a halt by locking up the PCs permanently. But you could punish them in ways that'll continue to be felt a bit. A limited-state fantasy setting could use the practice of weregild where instead of (expensively) locking people up, they just have to pay off their crimes to the family of the bereaved. Which might mean selling off your shiny new +1 striking weapon and having to make it through the next adventure severely undergeared. Well tough luck, you brought that on yourself.
The clever thing about the WBL system is that this is something you can do - while at level 4, it really hurts to lose a level 4 item, it doesn't drag you down for the rest of the campaign. By level 6, being down one level 4 item is just a nuisance. By level 10 you're finding so many +1 Striking weapons on mooks that they just go into a bag for sorting at Hero HQ later on.
This is what an exponential loot system lets you do: losses at one point do hurt, but they don't keep hurting forever. Likewise, if the heroes are exceptionally sweet at level 4 and earn an extra reward then, it'll give them a power spike for a bit, but the impact of that also diminishes over time.
So the point is: don't be afraid to punish people.
I very often play NPCs with their motives and psychology, even if it's not written clearly in the AP/PFS adventure. Yes, the merchant can be suspicious when you sell the gear of the "bandits you killed on the road". My NPCs react logically to the character actions. Even if I won't hinder an adventure because of that, Sense Motive can give tons of different results and suspicious NPC doesn't mean bad guy.
Also, killing someone because he's suspicious is an evil act (even if the guy's evil as it's not a crime to be evil). So the party takes its Infamy Point (in PFS) and in an AP, I take a bit of time to redefine the adventure as obviously it's no more an adventure speaking of the shining heroes who save the world. I may even accept the party to turn evil (as long as they have a valid reason to continue their quest, like to become the new BBEG instead of the old BBEG).