PVP, As written in the Wiki or something else?

The most important thing is here is 'Don't be a Dick.'

In your example situation, I would have players find a way to resolve the situation without fighting. Naturally the phrase 'But my character would do this'; Don't be that person, you are not your character and if your character would make a decision that will ruin other peoples fun don't do that thing.

Don't kill other characters unless everyone involved understands the consequences and is happy to go ahead with it.

Thank you both for responding back I do appreciate it. So if I understand you correctly, Haskalah, is that if player dose something that is against the alignment of the majority of the party members, he or she may be warned that their actions are not acceptable (even if they don't directly involve any of the party members), and if the "offending" character refuses to follow the offended party's orders then that is considered "mutual consent" and they can be attacked by the offended party.

Let's use the example you mentioned. I'll put my character, Remi Noel, in the place of the potentially offending character, as corrupt guards are in his back story.

Remi Kills one of the guards that shot his son down in cold blood, he proceed's to loot the body, and prepare it to be raised as a zombie. Another party member comes along and sees what Remi did and what he's obviously going to do, and they say "Hey you can't do that! Do that and I'll kill you." If Remi doesn't obey the other character's orders then would his disobedience would be considered "Mutual Consent" under your definition and they offended player could initiate PvP and attack?

If so I think that is certainly mutually exclusive to the definition of "mutual consent" Mutual consent is when both players agree to PvP. In this case Remi doesn't want to fight the party member, but he also dose not feel obliged to take orders from him either. There in lies the difference. As a player I would say no, I don't consent. The offended player doesn't have to resort to bullying other players whom have a different ethics set as they do. Instead of attacking Remi he could have just ran off to get the Town Guard and report to them who did it.

Like wise, if I'm playing Remi, and I saw a cleric of Pharasma consecrate a grave yard, spoiling a great source of undead, I'm not going to try and bully the player into combat because our characters ethics are different.

I love solid team play, I like to be supportive, and I work well with a team. However I don't want to be playing in groups were they guy a couple levels higher than you can just dictate under the threat of murder his will upon you. Which to me is what mutual consent is all about.

It is still fully consent based, that's where the conversation "I have a problem with you doing that, if you continue I'm going to stop you" starts. You then have a choice, continue on the road that you've started down and accept the consequences of doing so, or find another way around the impasse. One of the things you brought up when we were chatting about it this weekend was "I don't want anyone to tell me what I can do", which is fine but swings both ways. If a necromancer is running around in a party with a paladin, the necromancer does not get to flip the bird to the the Paladin and start doing all sorts of evil things just because PVP doesn't allow the paladin to immediately smite them. It does however protect you from blundering into something you didn't know was objectionable and get a chance to work around it. Without the consent PVP most paladin codes would make the paladin be fully in the right, and probably required to put down the dangerous necromancer that's raising the dead and slinging around evil spells, but because it's consent based the paladin has to issue a warning before he engages and from there you get a choice to not force the matter or to find a way to work around the conflict.

Same works in reverse, if there's a character in the party that decides that everything they found along the way belongs to them and is willing to fight over it you can totally say "I'm taking that jeweled goblet and if you try to stop me I'll fight for it", and now the other party has to decide, is that cup worth fighting over and is there another way to solve the problem. The one thing we do not do is a Yes/No toggle for PVP, when it occurs it generally occurs in response to a situation or an action and it's not just "I'm going to kill you now", this is to stop people from just saying "No I don't consent so you can sit and spin while I summon this demon and send it out to terrify the villagers" This does make some character concepts very difficult to play, particularly Necromancers as a couple of folks that have taken them out for a spin can attest, because for most characters/concepts react negatively to undead and for some reason people seem to take "necromancer" as a character to be as creepy and uncomfortable to deal with as possible, same could be said of demon binders which I believe no one has actually tried in DG yet.

The fortunate, or unfortunate depending on how you look at it, state of things is however that most parties are generally geared towards what would be considered Neutral or Neutral Good alignments in general. Most characters try to be the good guys and are generally OK with letting the odd balls do their thing so long as they're not actively hurting anyone or impacting the bottom line, almost to a fault the adventurers in Rook are mercenaries and should probably have Profit on the line for Deity on their character sheet. This shouldn't really be a huge surprise as the majority of games focus on more or less Good aligned, mercenary parties unless it's agreed upon ahead of time to do something else. If you have a character concept that doesn't fit that sort of group dynamic then you need to be prepared to deal with the conflicts that arise, be it PVP or bypassing things you think your character would want to do in favor of maintaining the status quo. It may come to a point where you may not be able/want to travel with certain characters. I have a couple of folks that some of my characters won't join parties with due to inter-character conflict, it's just the way of things in a game like this. Not everyone's ethos and morals are going to mesh, that's ok but no one gets to say "Ha ha I get to do what I want and there's nothing you can do about it"

Because the "target player" is generally the one forcing the issue. They're doing the objectionable action. If I walk up to someone with a squirt gun and start spraying someone in the face with it, it's not on them to find the peaceful resolution, they weren't doing anything wrong standing there, I'm the aggressor I have the burden to find the peaceful way out if I don't want to get punched in response.

It's not the same thing between a Paladin and a Necromancer.

We aren't talking about differences in opinions here, we are talking about the fundamental differences between Good and Evil, which are clearly defined in Pathfinder. Paladins are good and cannot (with a little leeway) work with Evil or they fall.

It's more like you were standing in the street pointing a gun at a baby and a police officer is saying he will arrest/shoot you if you don't put the gun down.

Necromancy IS evil and you have to deal with the consequences of it sometimes when you end up in a group with characters that have strong good morals. If you murder someone in plain sight of a guard, the guards are going to arrest you, action->consequence. If you raise a zombie in front of a Paladin he is going to smite you, action->consequence.

Now, I'm not saying don't play a necromancer. There are plenty of players who regularly use Undead as part of their strategy, you just have to be prepared for the fact that doing it openly will get you in trouble.

Diskelemental, I never brought up politics, I just used an example about people being gay or overly zealous in their faith. Both are common elements of Pathfinder. Check the story for the Iconic Slayer for a perfect example of those over Zealous in their faith. And that Good and evil are physical measurable things isn't always the case either, Unchained talks about that as well. But I digress.

I agree, that the Paladin should do that. I'm not arguing that. All I'm saying is that the PVP rules as written say mutual consent, And they talk about being rude or Asshaty to other player.

This is not mutual consent. It's if you do something against another character's alignment they can call you on it, and if you don't stop they can kill you.


And really, I can play in either system, I'm good with that. I just need to know which it is. And you guys have pretty much confirmed it's the latter. Thanks for the heads up.

I want to point out here, that mutual consent doesn't literally mean both players saying: "Let's PVP".

With a little bit of solid understanding of what all consent can mean, this means that amonst others whenever a verbal warning is issued, which states that you are doing something that is obviously against that players ethics/desires and such, well, that's where his statement is issued that he is going to try to stop you.

Consider it this way:

The police (in proper countries) isn't allowed to take aggresive actions unless necessary, similar to what mutual consent is here. Now, if they take aggresive action without issueing a warning or without seeing someone being obviously dangerous to society. So they issue a warning against the random guy that is doing something that is out of order. Now, the guy can't say: "Well, policeguy, sorry, but you aren't allowed to take aggresive actions so ill continue". No, the continueing of this action, is actually the same as verbally consenting.

So. No, you can't be the asshatty player. Yes, power of the character is important. If the paladin is 2 levels higher than you, you should listen. If you are, then well, the paladin would need to gather the rest of the party to convince you to stop. Of course, if this is out of control, and players start abusing their "might", there will always be the gm saying: "I think you should stop this, you're abusing your might". This will most certainly not happen often at all, because most players are decent, and will not force pvp to have to happen.

A necromancer has access to other spells (generally being prepared a fullcaster) and doesn't have to pay for an atonement if they don't raise enough undead. That's the entire point I'm making, a paladin needs to prevent evil, a necromancer chooses to raise undead.



That was a direct callback to the language I used to describe the difference between necromancers and paladins. Since I apparently didn't make myself clear the first time, allow me to rephrase: "Class Requirement > But I want to."



...
I've directly and respectfully responded to every issue you've brought up.

That statement was an aside responding to your references to Westboro Baptist and Islamic extremism. Using an analogy where you portray the side that disagrees with you as a hate group strikes me as disrespectful and distasteful. I'm calling you out on the way you chose to frame the issue, not the issue itself.

When did I say it was a personal attack?

I've told you to leave real-world politics out of this, because they cause issues, and can be unintentionally offensive. I'm not mad. I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm doing my job.

If I thought you were being deliberately insulting, we would be having a very different discussion.

As I said, it's not the content, it's the way that content is being framed.