|
As it so happens, during one of our recent adventures*, I, that being my character, an aspiring Hellknight, wanted to take an action that was specifically called out in the scenario to earn infamy. Now, I was perfectly fine with said point of infamy. For one, the penalties for having a point of infamy was not going to impact my character in the immediate future. And two, I was prepared to buy the boon for fixing infamy as soon as I was able. However, I was denied said action because the other players said they wouldn't allow it.
Now, my understanding is that a PC cannot be held accountable for the actions of others or if they are mind controlled. So, there should have been no risk to the other PCs. Also, there is the idea that characters cannot perform PvP, so technically, there would be no way for the other PCs to have stopped my action. To make matters more challenging, the GM was silent on the matter of the infamy being an individual or group award. Now, I'm not a douche (although I am sure a few would dispute that) so I do not want to negatively impact another player's character with my actions. I am a team player towards the end goal, but some characters are not opposed to getting a little "dirty" along the way. In no way would my action have negatively affected anyone's scenario rewards. In fact, it would have saved a couple of resources that we expended.
So, I am interested to hear some community thoughts on this situation. I do not expect everyone to agree so don't be surprised if there are diametrically opposed viewpoints. I am not aware of any org play rule that would cover this specific occurrence consistently from table to table so its just a thought exercise, but feel free to say so if there is.
*If you want specifics of which scenario I am referring to and the circumstances, I have it listed below, but its not really important for the question as it is a more general mental exercise. If you choose to respond with scenario specifics, please hide them behind a spoiler tag to protect the innocent.
PFS2 #2-23 An Agent's Obligation
|
|
The closest I've ever seen Infamy happening to a character was at a table where one player was 'acting out' their OOC frustrations IC, and hindering the party mission to nearly debilitating points in PFS1.
Fortunately, our GM saw the issue, saw how the rest of the characters were ready to handle it in-character, and let us have some roleplay time to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all party members, including the one with the bruised ego.
I could easily see a player subset of Organized Play attempting to 'force' the rest of the team to either A. Take Infamy or B. Not Take Infamy -- and not because they particularly care either way, but because there are people who love to have wedges to shove into things. And no matter which way that went, someone is going to be grumbling and/or hollering about it.
If there is a warning or hint about how 'dark and dirty' a situation can get, and one player takes it upon themselves in-character without letting the rest of the table know they are about to go that route, the other players should have some means of mitigating that without torpedoing the party's chances for success.
If most of the party wants to go the 'dark and dirty'/hang the consequences route, but there is a reasonable objection from one player, then as a GM I wouldn't penalize the player who spoke up and did everything in their power to prevent the dirty deed done dirt cheap without hampering mission success.
Could this stance be 'gamed'? Potentially, yes.
|
There are several separate issues
1) does player 1 get infamy for the actions of player 2? Absolutely not. Pretty much never.
2) is player 1 disrupting the table? If the entire rest of the table just wants to murder hobo the scenario OR wants to find a peaceful resolution but one player is insisting on trying to do things their way then that can be disruptive play. It can also be good roleplaying fodder. Depends on circumstances and players involved. But the goal should be for EVERYBODY to have fun at the table and sometimes that just means going with the majority, underplaying your character, etc
3) sometimes (and it should be VERY rare but it can happen) the group consensus or another characters actions can be so at odds with a PCs motivations that the PC just can NOT go along with it. In which case sometimes the only practical solution is for the character to not participate, to go off on their own, etc. Maybe to reunite with the party a little later, maybe to leave the scenario.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The areas that scenarios explicitly call out for Infamy are usually written as 'If the PCs do XYZ" not "Each PC who does, XYZ". And its usually a very binary thing -- the _party_ gets a large bonus if they do the bad thing and get the infamy. It's usually not something that makes sense for one person to actively do and the others to passively ignore, and still benefit from.
The more common Infamy situations aren't written into the scenario; there's no explicit benefit. Hence its easier to fairly adjudicate it on a per-character basis.
But I agree that it feels like the guide talks about the latter type of Infamy, and not the former.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The areas that scenarios explicitly call out for Infamy are usually written as 'If the PCs do XYZ"
If that is right then you're saying that if my character doesn't agree with the majority and/or I the player doesn't want infamy then my only choice is to quit a scenario in the middle of it? Which may or may not affect the challenge points and the encounters and therefore may or may not lead to other PC deaths. Assuming, of course, that it is a scenario where it is actually possible to leave in the middle (generally the case but not always the case).
I hope you're wrong because that is an INSANELY bad ruling. One that would drive me away from PFS if it came up in those first 2 or 3 sessions where I was still deciding whether PFS was for me or not.
Even now it might well cause me to retire a character. I guess from a world point of view it sort of makes sense that my paladin is tarred by the activities that his murder hobo allies did. But that is NOT the story I was trying to tell with my paladin and it would seriously irk me if that story was told against the players will. Heck, if it was a bad week it might STILL turn me off PFS for quite awhile
Fortunately this is almost entirely theoretical. I don't think I've ever been at a table where players and GM would allow things to go that far over the strong objections of one player.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
paladin...
Making infamy apply to the entire party is also counter the long-existing argument about paladins (and other "principled" characters) foisting their views on other players. Unless we want to go back to the days of bickering between the paladins and necromancers, we have to make infamy decisions individualistic and not a group dynamic.
|
I think that it is a very nuanced situation and cannot be addressed with broad strokes (either individual or group infamy).
Personally, I also think that if you are going to play a character that is okay dipping into the infamy zone, you be prepared to not do such things in the company of those who oppose it. Such preparedness would be an example of selfless play, as opposed to selfish play. Because, as it so happens, and as I have pointed out in other threads, it is a group game.
You are correct however, OP, there is no PvP and the other players could not have specifically prevented you from the action. But, similarly, you could not prevent the other players and the GM from leaving the table and continuing the game elsewhere without you. Be wary of opening a door you may not want opened.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, I agree its a bit of a mess. I wish hard-coded infamy decision points in scenarios weren't written as 'all or nothing'. I haven't been at a table where the PCs took the infamy option; haven't even been at a table where one PC wanted it and the others didn't. So its been a moot point for me.
The problem becomes that many of the explicitly group infamy choices come with rewards that benefit the whole group. "All infamy is individual would mean eliminating thos situations as an option. Because other wise you could have a group "sin eater" who any time there was infamy that the whole group benefits from, just quietly ushers everyone else out the door before performing their butchery. Thus ensuring the other PCs never get their hands dirty.
Which isn't really something we should be encouraging...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...similarly, you could not prevent the other players and the GM from leaving the table and continuing the game elsewhere without you. Be wary of opening a door you may not want opened.
It is interesting how often this is an issue for the player and not the character. In my specific situation, based on the alignment and attitudes of the characters demonstrated during the game, they should not have had that strong a reaction to my proposed action. I could understanding it perfectly if we had champions, goodly PCs, etc., but that was not the case. When everyone is choosing non-good alignments with the intend, at least in part, to avoid the possible extra damage and restricted action options inherent to it, then you set yourself up to live on the edge of neutrality. It's a matter of having your cake and eating it too.
IMO, the key point was that the GM did not clarify their position and that is what I kind of objected to more than anything. As I made clear upthread, I am not interested in hurting another player's character, so if the infamy would have been a group "reward" I would not have performed it. However, if only my PC would be hurt by the action, there is no reason for any of the players to feign outrage that their characters would not have expressed.
We like to take about nuance here in the boards and most people suggest there are circumstances where questionable actions might be taken, but I have found that in practice, no one performs them and display personal insult if someone else does. We might as well declare the campaign neutral good with lawful tendencies, though it might not jive that well with the society's clear disregard for personal property rights when it suits their interests.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem becomes that many of the explicitly group infamy choices come with rewards that benefit the whole group.
True, which is why IMO (1) we need to make sure the rules are clear that it is a GM fiat issue and (2) the GM must express to the group if/when an action will result in individual infamy vs group infamy since that is just as important as them warning about the infamy itself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. When everyone is choosing non-good alignments with the intend, at least in part, to avoid the possible extra damage and restricted action options inherent to it,
That is a rather huge assumption on your part and one that I believe to be flat out wrong in a great many cases.
However, if only my PC would be hurt by the action, there is no reason for any of the players to feign outrage that their characters would not have expressed.
Another huge and, IMO, incorrect assumption. Just because my character may not have been yelling "Praise Apsu" at every opportunity (which my paladin tends to do) does NOT mean that they don't have a strong moral code.
And, of course, alignment is an incredibly coarse metric which everyone disagrees about. It is very, very possible that I have written "N" on my character sheet because that seems like the best general description but that
1) my definition of neutral doesn't agree with yours and/or
2) despite being neutral he would NEVER agree to some specific infamy generating action your character wants to do
|
|
That is a rather huge assumption on your part...
Not when it was an actual topic of discussion at the table.
And that is why I specifically said, "...attitudes of the characters demonstrated during the game." I agree that alignment in and of itself is not an encompassing metric. In fact, many people do not play their character anywhere near the alignment they have written on the sheet, which is why if/when it matters to my PC, I pay attention to their actual actions.
|
We received group Infamy in a scenario because we were attacked by enraged bystanders, who nevertheless dealt subdual damage. The first PC acting was a sorcerer who used a Reach Chill Touch. The target bystander crit failed their save and died. So, the whole group got 1 point of Infamy, including those who only used subdual attacks and those who did not even attack.
And there was absolutely zero advantage / rewards compensating the group infamy awarded by the scenario.
Should the GM have warned the player before he used the Chill Touch ?
|
|
According to the Guide to Organized Play, the GM must warn players that their action will cause them to earn Infamy. They only earn the infamy if they go through with it.We received group Infamy in a scenario because we were attacked by enraged bystanders, who nevertheless dealt subdual damage. The first PC acting was a sorcerer who used a Reach Chill Touch. The target bystander crit failed their save and died. So, the whole group got 1 point of Infamy, including those who only used subdual attacks and those who did not even attack.
And there was absolutely zero advantage / rewards compensating the group infamy awarded by the scenario.
Should the GM have warned the player before he used the Chill Touch ?
The GM thinks this applies only to evil/criminal acts decided by the PCs, and not for Infamy that is "awarded" by the scenario.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "NPC's die when they reach 0 hp" rule is there to simplify and expedite the gameplay. It's intent is to ensure that the GM doesn't have to spend time tracking dying enemies when it doesn't matter, and to ensure that PC's can freely cast 3 action heals without worrying about bringing a combatant back into the fight. It is not intended to serve as a way for GMs to screw over players by simply killing off NPCs the PCs clearly wish to save and keep alive.
Firstly, the guide is explicit - GM -must- warn players if they are about to earn infamy. There are no exceptions. This isn't a game of "GOTCHA!" where the Gm omits information (killing these is bad) just to later reveal that "HA! You got infamy!": No, the player must have made a conscious decision, knowing the consequences of their action, to earn that infamy. Gm probably should have warned the player that attacking lethally may kill the NPCs and result in infamy.
It's understandable that nobody foresaw the crit, though, so maybe the GM thought it wasn't relevant at that moment since the risk of immediate death didn't seem likely - personally, in that case I would have told the player that the NPC is in risk of dying from the crit, moved them to dying 2, and warned that if the players do not intervene, his death will cause infamy.
Secondly, the rules for dying say:
Player characters, their companions, and other significant characters and creatures don’t automatically die when they reach 0 Hit Points. Instead, they are knocked out and are at risk of death. At the GM’s discretion, villains, powerful monsters, special NPCs, and enemies with special abilities that are likely to bring them back to the fight (like ferocity, regeneration, or healing magic) can use these rules as well.
These NPC's are significant and special, because their deaths have immediate, nearly-permanent effects on the characters careers, and thus using the dying rules for them is appropriate.
I do admit that this isn't super technical or binding - aside from the need to inform them about incoming infamy - A GM does not have to use the dying rules for NPCs, but this is a situation where it's strongly advised. OR; put another way, there's no reason not to use them. There's no reason for a GM to go "Ah, you clearly want and should save these NPCs. Too bad, I'll kill them off as soon as they hit 0."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards have this option: Nonlethal Spell, but I concur in wishing it existed for more classes.
|
Yeah. Most of the metamagic feats should be available to all of the caster classes.
Back on topic, for me, if a player tries to stop an NPC from dying in the round after the NPC is taken to zero, then that NPC is significant enough to allow it. Even if it’s a round or two later, you can usually figure out if it would work or not. If they’re significant enough to the PCs to try to save, then they should be significant enough to track, and there’s still no reason to do it for the majority of them. But if someone says “I want to stabilize the bar patron,” and the bar patron just got taken to 0, there’s really no reason to tell the player no.
If, however, the PC who took them to 0 goes on a long description about cutting the NPC in half or something, then I’d probably just say the NPC is dead at 0.
|
|
The guide doesn't list exemptions to requiring a warning. If something you do would cause infamy, they're supposed to give some kind of clear warning.The GM thinks this applies only to evil/criminal acts decided by the PCs, and not for Infamy that is "awarded" by the scenario.According to the Guide to Organized Play, the GM must warn players that their action will cause them to earn Infamy. They only earn the infamy if they go through with it.We received group Infamy in a scenario because we were attacked by enraged bystanders, who nevertheless dealt subdual damage. The first PC acting was a sorcerer who used a Reach Chill Touch. The target bystander crit failed their save and died. So, the whole group got 1 point of Infamy, including those who only used subdual attacks and those who did not even attack.
And there was absolutely zero advantage / rewards compensating the group infamy awarded by the scenario.
Should the GM have warned the player before he used the Chill Touch ?
The guide is written this way :
"Infamy
Infamy represents a character’s reputation for performing evil or criminal actions. Some scenarios will call out specific actions that will cause characters one or more PCs to gain infamy. Additionally the GM may assign infamy for other evil or criminal acts not called out by the scenario.
Warnings: The GM must warn the Player that their act will incur Infamy. This warning can be in character or out of character but must be clear to the player. If the PC goes through with the action, they earn the point of infamy."
I think the GM believed the Warnings to apply only to the second case of assigning infamy ("Additionally ...").
And that the Infamy gain specified in a scenario applied exactly as scripted.
Given the impact of Infamy, I think the warnings should be added to any scenario that has scripted Infamy gains, to make sure there is no misunderstanding.
|
|
I agree that the GM had an obligation to warn the players, but I stop at saying they have an obligation to use the death and dying rules. The warning should be sufficient. I recall running a scenario semi-recently with a similar theme and I did not use the death and dying rules. Though, in each instance, I was fortunate that have players savvy enough to recognize the situation and use nonlethal force without prompting.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Looking at the Death and Dying rules from another angle:
Player characters, their companions, and other significant characters and creatures don’t automatically die when they reach 0 Hit Points. Instead, they are knocked out and are at risk of death. At the GM’s discretion, villains, powerful monsters, special NPCs, and enemies with special abilities that are likely to bring them back to the fight (like ferocity, regeneration, or healing magic) can use these rules as well.
Normally NPCs die at 0HP because the assumption is nobody's going to save them, so why go through the motions of tracking their dying state.
But if the players indicate they would like to use their healing magic or something like it to save the NPC, that could also be a good reason for the GM to use the full Dying rules.
Yes, the GM doesn't have to, but the rules very much allow the GM to.
If the GM decides not to use these rules because they don't think it fits the scene, ok, that's their prerogative. But that's a matter of taste, not because the RAW demands it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This doesn't require changes to the scenarios or to the guide. At this point bring the issue to the supervising VO of the GM's venue/region.
Am I correct in assuming PCs getting Infamy is rare?
Would it be possible for a VO/VC to simply review every instance of Infamy being assigned in their region?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PCs getting Infamy is rare, at least in my experience. I think in my 350 GM or played sessions, I recall one instance of a PC getting infamy, and that was someone seeking out a way to get it, without impacting the party.
From a 'amount of logistics/review' required for a VO review every instance of infamy, I suspect it would be reasonable. However, from a 'its too much hassle' or 'second guessing our GMs as a matter of course' I think it would end up being a bad policy.
As stated multiple times, Infamy should never be a surprise. It's a conscious decision of the player to have their character do an action that will result in infamy. If the GM wasn't clear on this, it's a GM problem and that is worth bringing to the VOs.
I do think scenario authors/editors need to be more careful/thoughtful about built-in infamy in include the warning, and to make it very clear if its singular character infamy or party infamy. And if its the latter it needs to require full party consent, not one player's 'leeroy jenkin-isms'.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The guide doesn't list exemptions to requiring a warning. If something you do would cause infamy, they're supposed to give some kind of clear warning.The GM thinks this applies only to evil/criminal acts decided by the PCs, and not for Infamy that is "awarded" by the scenario.According to the Guide to Organized Play, the GM must warn players that their action will cause them to earn Infamy. They only earn the infamy if they go through with it.We received group Infamy in a scenario because we were attacked by enraged bystanders, who nevertheless dealt subdual damage. The first PC acting was a sorcerer who used a Reach Chill Touch. The target bystander crit failed their save and died. So, the whole group got 1 point of Infamy, including those who only used subdual attacks and those who did not even attack.
And there was absolutely zero advantage / rewards compensating the group infamy awarded by the scenario.
Should the GM have warned the player before he used the Chill Touch ?
Sorry for the minor thread necro:
Oragnejedi42 and NielsenE are correct.
There is *NO* exemption to the GM obligation to warn the players before awarding Infamy.
The GM *must* warn the players, or Infamy cannot be awarded.
|
Venture-Agent, France—Paris
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really dislike when Infamy is "scripted" inside an adventure. Alignment, morality, all these things are very dependent on people, cultures (PFS is a worldwide campaign) and even situations. You can technically earn Infamy by unfortunately killing an NPC you try to save with a natural 1 in Medicine, and the rules for massive damage ignore non lethal damage. Circumstances always need to be taken into account. And sometimes, the way the GM describes the scene can influence the way the players visualize it, sometimes it's wrong information (maybe through a critical failure to a knowledge check) that lead to the bad decision. The GM should be the only one able to determine if the PC(s) actions are one that should grant Infamy.
|
|
As already stated, the GM is wrong.
This doesn't require changes to the scenarios or to the guide. At this point bring the issue to the supervising VO of the GM's venue/region.
Guess who is the VO ? ;-)
AFAIK, thanks to a later debate about this, the GM agreed not to give / report Infamy. But I believe they still kept the reduced gain from having taken the action that caused Infamy :-/
TBT I agree completely with Superbidi. Infamy loss is so rare but has such an impact when it happens that it should be GM territory only. Not scripted in a scenario.
What does it add there after all ? Making PFS characters fall ?
|
|
What does it add there after all ? Making PFS characters fall ?
I'm not familiar with the scenario in question.
What I expect from scripted Infamy is that it outlines the vision Organized Play has for in-game behaviors that generate Infamy and cover common "quick" solutions to problems that are unlawful or evil. Example: the PFS sends you to negotiate with the mayor of some independent city to borrow or transcribe an ancient tome in the city's archives but you steal it instead. The scenario includes a line, "If the players opt to steal the tome rather than negotiate for access, they each gain 1 Infamy."
What happens when the characters or players don't agree on the path to take?
I might not lose my Champion's class features if I get set at a table with 5 players with Rogues and Investigators who want to steal the book instead, but do I gain the Infamy?
What steps do I need to take to not gain Infamy?
What happens when half the party wants to do it the lawful way and half the party wants to do it the unlawful way, but neither have enough people to do either path successfully?
This steers close to a topic I've been thinking about posting in a separate thread, but what do you do with the Champion who doesn't want to participate in the Infamy granting path that the rest of the table wants to pursue so he stays on the boat or in the inn or at camp? Does he get full credit as he sits out the encounters the rest of the table goes through? Not that it's fun for the player of the Champion. He probably feels like dirt sitting there wishing he had a rogue character in tier to join in the action (or lamenting that he paid for a ticket for this table).
|
|
To allow a wide variety of characters in Society play, the rules around edicts and anathema are slightly relaxed. All characters can participate in Pathfinder Society adventures without running afoul of their deity or classes anathema. Assume that the society has taken whatever steps are necessary such that attempting to perform the primary objective of an official Pathfinder Society mission by itself will not cause a character to fall out of favor with their deity.Likewise, while edicts are valorous actions praised by a deity, a character does not need to perform their deity’s edicts to the exclusion of other activities, or if doing so would prevent the smooth progression of play at the table.
Anathema in pathfinder society are always personal. The actions of one PC at a table can never cause another PC at the table to fall. (Though players are welcome to express their disapproval provided it does not interfere with the progress of the game.)
Remember that edicts and anathema exist to create roleplaying opportunities at the table for your character, and should not be used by the GM to pressure PCs, or by PCs to pressure other members of the table toward specific styles of play.
|
|
I do understand the part about anathema's being relaxed and protected from other's actions.
My question is what do one do if one does not want Infamy on their character but the rest of the table, having been warned by the GM that it will generate Infamy, still wants to take the scripted Infamy route?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I do understand the part about anathema's being relaxed and protected from other's actions.
My question is what do one do if one does not want Infamy on their character but the rest of the table, having been warned by the GM that it will generate Infamy, still wants to take the scripted Infamy route?
This is where the society's requirement (in game and out of game) to cooperate comes into play. It is the obligation of the players *and* the characters to come up with a solution that makes the table enjoyable for everyone.
This is obviously a thing where resolving it is going to be different for every table. There is not a single hard and fast rule for every situation, and creating one would only wind up with people trying to use it to grief other players.