Is Destroying a Fellow Player's Raised Dead / Commanded Undead an action that Constitutes PVP in Society Play?

[Rhapsodic College Dropout]

Title says it all I think.

I know the topic of necromancy ethics has been discussed in length on the forums, but I just don't see how a druid (especially one with a good alignment) who sees undead as a severe disruption to the cycle of nature can sit idly by and watch the animation of undead unfold.

I like the concept of necromancers, I really do, but in a "living campaign" where the group makeup can be a bit on the nefarious side one gaming session can easily be a group of devout crusaders the next gaming session I see raising the dead and controlling the dead for personal use as a bit of a monkey wrench in the gears.

Thoughts?

[FLite]

There is a thread here somewhere by someone who matters that addresses this. (Specifically Paladins and undead summoners.)

My recollection is it boiled down to "please don't go to war with your parties animated undead, it disrupts game. But you can make the necromancer promise to put them somewhere respectful when he is done."

[Nefreet]

I thought Pathfinders were supposed to "Explore, Report, and Cooperate".

How is "destroying the resources of your fellow party member" any of that?

[Nefreet]

A Necromantic version of Rhapsodic College Dropout might have wrote:

I know the topic of animal abuse has been discussed in length on the forums, but I just don't see how a druid (especially one with a good alignment) should be allowed to tame wild animals and drag them with him to the ends of the earth just to watch them suffer and die. At least my minions don't have a soul, don't feel pain, and certainly don't need to be "pushed" against their will.

[FLite]

Well, that becomes a question of is your character a pathfinder druid, or a druid pathfinder? (See the Maslow's Pathfinders thread.)

But yes, cooperate comes into this. For both the Druid and the Necromancer. And also the "dont be a jerk." Personally, I would expect both players to be adults and work out a compromise that both characters can live with.

[Sniggevert]

FLite wrote:

But yes, cooperate comes into this. For both the Druid and the Necromancer. And also the "dont be a jerk." Personally, I would expect both players to be adults and work out a compromise that both characters can live with.

This. 100% This.

[FLite]

(One of these days I am going to watch one of these animate dead players go through a scenario with a BBEG who has control undead. And I'm just going to giggle. Assuming I am GMing. Otherwise I will be running like heck.)

[Kyrie Ebonblade]

FLite wrote:

There is a thread here somewhere by someone who matters that addresses this. (Specifically Paladins and undead summoners.)

My recollection is it boiled down to "please don't go to war with your parties animated undead, it disrupts game. But you can make the necromancer promise to put them somewhere respectful when he is done."

it's not JUST paladins and necros. I know my cleric of Pharasma has SERIOUS issues on the subject of undeath.

[FLite]

Nefreet wrote:

A Necromantic version of Rhapsodic College Dropout might have wrote:

I know the topic of animal abuse has been discussed in length on the forums, but I just don't see how a druid (especially one with a good alignment) should be allowed to tame wild animals and drag them with him to the ends of the earth just to watch them suffer and die. At least my minions don't have a soul, don't feel pain, and certainly don't need to be "pushed" against their will.

Actually, that's why Gormheir doesn't name his riding gecko, and uses it like expendable cover. He sees it as expendable as the cow that was his dinner last night. If he didn't he would never take it into combat, because if he cared about it, that would just be cruel.

But it the whole argument is also predicated on the idea that animals have a moral value equivalent to sentient races. Since the game world is still struggling with the idea that slaves have a moral value equal to free men, that's probably not a really comprehensible argument to most characters in the setting.

A druid could also make the argument that their animal companion is not a trained wild beast, but a friend, who has come to share their values, and thus it is no different from going on missions with other pathfinders, who have chosen to be there. And the pushing is not so much that the companion is unwilling, but that the difficulty in communication means that it takes time and a simplified language to get the companion to understand what is wanted.

[FLite]

Thomas Graham wrote:

FLite wrote:

There is a thread here somewhere by someone who matters that addresses this. (Specifically Paladins and undead summoners.)

My recollection is it boiled down to "please don't go to war with your parties animated undead, it disrupts game. But you can make the necromancer promise to put them somewhere respectful when he is done."

it's not JUST paladins and necros. I know my cleric of Pharasma has SERIOUS issues on the subject of undeath.

The thread I recalled, the response from (SKR? I think?) specifically used a paladin for it's example. That's all I meant.

[Akerlof]

Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play, Page 12: Cooperate wrote:

The Society places no moral obligations upon its members, so agents span all races, creeds, and motivations. At any given time, a Pathfinder lodge might house a fiend summoning Chelaxian, a Silver Crusade paladin, an antiquities-obsessed Osirian necromancer, and a friendly Taldan raconteur. Pathfinder agents, no matter which of the eight factions they belong to, are expected to respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering a helping hand.

The real question is, why would a "druid ... who sees undead as a severe disruption to the cycle of nature" join an organization where he knows he will rub elbows and very likely have to work closely with undead creating necromancers?

You need to keep the metagame in mind when you're creating characters for PFS just like you do in any other campaign. You need to create a character who can handle the other PCs he's going to have to work with. When you're creating your character for PFS, don't forget to answer the question "Why would this person join the Pathfinder Society, knowing all that it entails?"

Quote:

I like the concept of necromancers, I really do, but in a "living campaign" where the group makeup can be a bit on the nefarious side one gaming session can easily be a group of devout crusaders the next gaming session I see raising the dead and controlling the dead for personal use as a bit of a monkey wrench in the gears.

If you read the Pathfinder Society sourcebooks referenced in the Guide to Organized Play (Seekers of Secrets, Pathfinder Society Field Guide, Pathfinder Society Primer) you would find that it is the devout crusaders who are out of place in the Society, not the necromancers. The Silver Crusade wasn't one of the original factions, the Pathfinder Society is a neutral, not a good organization. In most cases, those necromancers fit into the fluff of the Pathfinder Society better than the devout crusaders do.

Why would a group of devout crusaders join an organization that doesn't care about the overall balance of good or evil, an organization that is purely organized for the discovery of knowledge? If you want to create a character of very strong moral conviction, you need to answer that question. Find a reason for that character to join the Pathfinder Society and you will probably find a way for that character to deal with the necromancers, demon summoners, and other weird outcasts.

[Chris Mortika]

There are character concepts that don't work in Pathfinder Society.

"Those damnable Foxgloves ruined my family and stole our fortune. Nothing matters except that I put them in the cold ground and dance on their graves as they slowly suffocate."

"I am a displaced prince of Brevoy, on my way to claim my kingdom."

"I thought we were playing Skull & Shackles. I'm a pirate."

And also on the list is:

"I hate that other kind of character who shows up in the Pathfinder Society, and who might be my ally."

I mean, seriously, the Society collects all sorts of agents. If you come up with a character concept that can't play nice with them, then you've made a PC along the lines of "I'm a pirate." Cool character, but it doesn't belong in this campaign.

[Baron Ulfhamr]

You have to deal with it in PFS. Your imaginary character and mine must play nice till the mission is done. Then all animated minions are gone anyway

[El Baron de los Banditos]

Chris Mortika wrote:

"I thought we were playing Skull & Shackles. I'm a pirate."

As long as you're okay with "Land Piracy" and can play well with others, you're pretty much already a Sczarni Pathfinder. But that aside... the argument about "Say there's a party of Necromancers and a last player wants to play a Paladin; does that make the Paladin at fault for being in the minority" will never end. Compromise (in AND out-of character) is the only option with both players playing, really.

[Chris Mortika]

What if the paladin's player signed up first? What if the majority of the table is undead-hatin' good guys? I don't think those things ought to matter.

I have a paladin / Hellknight who detests humanoid undead on principle, and I also have a cleric of Charon who commands undead as a routine tactic. They both understand the rules of "cooperate" and they could probably work as allies. But the cleric would restrict himself to animating animal skeletons and zombies, and the paladin hasn't taken a Vow against undeath or anything.

[Kyrie Ebonblade]

FLite wrote:

Thomas Graham wrote:

FLite wrote:

There is a thread here somewhere by someone who matters that addresses this. (Specifically Paladins and undead summoners.)

My recollection is it boiled down to "please don't go to war with your parties animated undead, it disrupts game. But you can make the necromancer promise to put them somewhere respectful when he is done."

it's not JUST paladins and necros. I know my cleric of Pharasma has SERIOUS issues on the subject of undeath.

The thread I recalled, the response from (SKR? I think?) specifically used a paladin for it's example. That's all I meant.

Just saying it's not the lawful good types that might be against it. Roasa was taught as a Cleric of Pharasma that life was a cycle that had to be respected. Her worst foes are the undead. She had Control Undead for one reason. To stop their revenges upon the living and to force them to accept the merciful release from their imprisonment outside the circle of life (She typically makes them kneel, blesses them..then coup de gras them (or has someone better with a weapon do it))

[lostpike]

Personally, I have two thoughts on this.

If the undead are raised/created during the module than they are like creatures from summoned monster/summon nature's ally. Who really cares if they kill him.

That said I agree with above. Don't be a Jerk.

However, if its a companion of the player somehow and is with the player for every scenario. Than I am definitely against allowing people to kill it just because its undead (example: shadow dancers shadow companion.) Think of it this way: Would it be wrong if someone killed your familiar or animal companion because they hated birds?

So back to the original statement. Don't be a Jerk.

[El Baron de los Banditos]

Chris Mortika wrote:

What if the paladin's player signed up first? What if the majority of the table is undead-hatin' good guys? I don't think those things ought to matter.

I think we're on the same same side; it shouldn't matter and folks need to not be a jerk and compromise. I just wanted to sum up the entire thread (and every one like it) in a neat, little post.

[Victor Zajic]

lostpike wrote:

Personally, I have two thoughts on this.

If the undead are raised/created during the module than they are like creatures from summoned monster/summon nature's ally. Who really cares if they kill him.

That said I agree with above. Don't be a Jerk.

However, if its a companion of the player somehow and is with the player for every scenario. Than I am definitely against allowing people to kill it just because its undead (example: shadow dancers shadow companion.) Think of it this way: Would it be wrong if someone killed your familiar or animal companion because they hated birds?

So back to the original statement. Don't be a Jerk.

Birds killed my entire family. That's why I'm a barbarian.

[Kyrie Ebonblade]

I know my action.

I'd tell the player.. and if he insists. I'll dip into my resevoir of other characters. Roasa is fun to play.. but I can't spoil other's role playing because of my character's outlook. Push comes to shove, I'd find another table or sit it out.

Won't be the first time, won't be the last.

[Baron Ulfhamr]

I can't believe players can't "get along" for an adventure. Cleric of Pharasma? Good. Necromancer? Great. Paladin? Half-orc barbarian? Pirate? Whatever- fine. Your character in this game is contracted by an outside source (the Society) who employs a diverse group. Work together, or don't work for them.

Try starting a problem with someone you don't like at your real-life job based on the person's race, religion, creed, etc. and see how fast you get fired. You must put personal feelings aside to play/work together.

[Rhapsodic College Dropout]

Thanks for the responses.

I totally agree with the "don't be a jerk" philosophy of the PFS. I haven't messed with anybody's minions (alive or...uhh...undead), I was just curious as to the situation itself.

I am usually always the GM at the game groups I am a part of, and I rarely get to play the types of characters I would like to play, the "caster" druid being one of them. The point about making a character that makes sense to being an agent in the PFS rings the most true regarding Paizo's awesome living campaign.

[Matthew Trent]

Chris Mortika wrote:

"I thought we were playing Skull & Shackles. I'm a pirate."

Isn't S&S approved for society play?

[Mike Mistele]

Matthew Trent wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

"I thought we were playing Skull & Shackles. I'm a pirate."

Isn't S&S approved for society play?

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is.

And, in fact, my primary PFS character, Captain Xan Stormblade, is a pirate, with the Sczarni faction (amusingly, Chris Mortika was the GM for the very first adventure in which I played her).

As these things go, Xan is probably not an ideal Pathfinder (she's too mercenary and self-centered, and tends to whine about having to go underground), but she also has never had a problem with cooperating with the other Pathfinders, even if she delights in needling the goody-two-shoes types. I hope that I've never played her at a table where one of the other players found her (or me) to be difficult or anything less than a team player.

[Baron Ulfhamr]

Another thought on destroying a necromancer's undead: The cost of onyx, the material component for animate dead, is 25gp per hit die of the creature(s). It is already bad enough that any creatures surviving combat will mysteriously disappear after session, so players destroying a necromancer's investment in gold and magic is a breach of Society policy- character moral objections aside.

[LazarX]

Chris Mortika wrote:

What if the paladin's player signed up first? What if the majority of the table is undead-hatin' good guys? I don't think those things ought to matter.

I have a paladin / Hellknight who detests humanoid undead on principle, and I also have a cleric of Charon who commands undead as a routine tactic. They both understand the rules of "cooperate" and they could probably work as allies. But the cleric would restrict himself to animating animal skeletons and zombies, and the paladin hasn't taken a Vow against undeath or anything.

This is pretty much it in a nutshell. If you are a Pathfinder, you're a person that is willing to compromise to the point where the Society's aims are more important than the differences between you and some of your fellow Pathfinders. While the Society is not nominally good, it pretty much puts the kibosh on evil beings joining the society of it it does, it curtails their operations to the extent that you won't be dealing with them.

However there is a limit to the Society's accomodation. Those who have extreme viewpoints, and will not exhibit the neccessary flexibility to work with others simply have no place in the Society at large.

[Drake Brimstone]

I know this isn't directly related to the whole Undead thing but I have a character that is against Slavery to the extreme (ok, basically all my characters hate it.) She is, however, under direct orders from her superiors in the Andoran faction to not interfere in active slavery if it could endanger the mission at hand. She does however report it so it can be dealt with later.

Paladins and Clerics can operate under the same basic principle. You can't directly interfere with the Necromancer as it would adversely affect the mission, but do report back to your leadership after the mission.

This covers the RP aspect of why you aren't murdering the necromancer.

[FLite]

I have the wonderful mental image of a necromancer and a paladin. On mission they are perfectly civil to each other. Outside of missions they are engaged in an eternal game of cat and mouse as they seek to kill each other either without getting caught or within the letter of the law. (The paladin because the necromancer is summoning undead, the necromancer because the paladin is planning to kill him.)

[Bigrin da Troll]

"Mornin' Sam."
"Mornin' Ralph."

[GreySector]

Bigrin da Troll wrote:

"Mornin' Sam."

"Mornin' Ralph."

Except the opposite? Sam and Ralph were adversaries at work and collegial outside of work.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Bigrin da Troll wrote:

"Mornin' Sam."

"Mornin' Ralph."

Hah! I was thinking the exact same thing!

[Patrick Harris @ MU]

Michael Eshleman wrote:

Bigrin da Troll wrote:

"Mornin' Sam."

"Mornin' Ralph."

Except the opposite? Sam and Ralph were adversaries at work and collegial outside of work.

Way to kill the joke.

[Bigrin da Troll]

Hello, my name is Bigrin da Troll. You killed my joke. Prepare to die (after we finish this important mission for the Venture Captain)!

[The Beard]

Truth be told, someone could make one very simple argument: "If you can kill my undead, you probably won't mind if I engulf your bonded holy horse mount in an empowered, maximized fireball. It's all right. My sorcerer bloodlines only add two damage for every die rolled. You can just get a new one." True, those undead aren't a class mechanic for the necromancer, but that sort of spellcaster becomes very expensive very quickly. The little caveat about having to spend what precious little money you get on your undead (That you lose after the scenario/module anyway), in my opinion, would make taking them out every bit as much of a jerk move as the aforementioned horse explosion.

[Sitri]

For a little while I played a gunslinger cleric of Dranngvit who was hellbent on punishing wrongdoers. Any time a player would do something I thought transgressed against an innocent, I would have my character write down in a journal (as I wrote down on my character sheet) the name of the offending character, the type of offense, and "Awaiting arbitration," that was what I called it when I killed a wrong doer. So mechanically I didn't screw over any one else's character, but from a roleplay point of view, my character planned to track these people down and inflict justice on them at a later time when it didn't compromise the mission. It was a fun way for me resolve what otherwise might have led to nasty moral dilemmas.

[inhuman_candyman]

I would like some of the players and GMs at my local pfs events to read this thread. I had a character all mapped out the way i wanted him, he was as close to an undead lord as i could legally make and fought with neg channel then the shop owner and one of the main GMs pretty much said that nobody is going to want to play with this character including them and even if it was legal i would be hard pressed to get a game because they wouldn't GM for it. So my character was retired before her first scenario.

[Baron Ulfhamr]

inhuman_candyman wrote:

I would like some of the players and GMs at my local pfs events to read this thread. I had a character all mapped out the way i wanted him, he was as close to an undead lord as i could legally make and fought with neg channel then the shop owner and one of the main GMs pretty much said that nobody is going to want to play with this character including them and even if it was legal i would be hard pressed to get a game because they wouldn't GM for it. So my character was retired before her first scenario.

That's BS. If you're going to GM for PFS, you have to allow for all legal options (regardless of your opinion) as well as disallow the illegal ones. It's not your personal homebrew game, it's PFS. Those GMs should be reported and not be receiving GM credit in PFS.

[Edenwaith]

Rhapsodic College Dropout wrote:

Title says it all I think.

I know the topic of necromancy ethics has been discussed in length on the forums, but I just don't see how a druid (especially one with a good alignment) who sees undead as a severe disruption to the cycle of nature can sit idly by and watch the animation of undead unfold.

I like the concept of necromancers, I really do, but in a "living campaign" where the group makeup can be a bit on the nefarious side one gaming session can easily be a group of devout crusaders the next gaming session I see raising the dead and controlling the dead for personal use as a bit of a monkey wrench in the gears.

Thoughts?

I would like to add a twist. I cared not either way due to the 'cooperate' condition when the Necromancer summoned an undead steed. He sent it after the bad guy and at some point it turned into a chase. My Ranger took a shortcut and cut off the bad guy and ordered him to surrender (good ranger:), which the bad guy did. End of that same round the undead mount showed up and began attacking bad guy and the necromancer hadn't caught up to call it off. So I killed the undead mount. The necromancer threw a hissy-fit because he had summoned it with some magic item and wanted the GM to 'punish' me for committing an 'attack another player' act. We needed information from that bad guy. Normally I'm all about "that's my pet, leave it the hell alone", however, I believe this to be extenuating circumstances. Thoughts?

[yumad]

Edenwaith wrote:

Rhapsodic College Dropout wrote:

Title says it all I think.

I know the topic of necromancy ethics has been discussed in length on the forums, but I just don't see how a druid (especially one with a good alignment) who sees undead as a severe disruption to the cycle of nature can sit idly by and watch the animation of undead unfold.

I like the concept of necromancers, I really do, but in a "living campaign" where the group makeup can be a bit on the nefarious side one gaming session can easily be a group of devout crusaders the next gaming session I see raising the dead and controlling the dead for personal use as a bit of a monkey wrench in the gears.

Thoughts?

I would like to add a twist. I cared not either way due to the 'cooperate' condition when the Necromancer summoned an undead steed. He sent it after the bad guy and at some point it turned into a chase. My Ranger took a shortcut and cut off the bad guy and ordered him to surrender (good ranger:), which the bad guy did. End of that same round the undead mount showed up and began attacking bad guy and the necromancer hadn't caught up to call it off. So I killed the undead mount. The necromancer threw a hissy-fit because he had summoned it with some magic item and wanted the GM to 'punish' me for committing an 'attack another player' act. We needed information from that bad guy. Normally I'm all about "that's my pet, leave it the hell alone", however, I believe this to be extenuating circumstances. Thoughts?

Grapple/pin? Necromancer could have used speak with dead on the dead bad guy. Killing it seemed unnecessary.

[FLite]

Grapple / pin is still technically PVP.

Also the steed is going to now attach the person pinning it probably, so now the necromancer is PVPing the ranger.

Question: He summoned an undead mount to chase down a bad guy they needed to question. Its an undead MOUNT!!!! Why didn't he just ride the darn thing?

[LazarX]

Edenwaith wrote:

I would like to add a twist. I cared not either way due to the 'cooperate' condition when the Necromancer summoned an undead steed. He sent it after the bad guy and at some point it turned into a chase. My Ranger took a shortcut and cut off the bad guy and ordered him to surrender (good ranger:), which the bad guy did. End of that same round the undead mount showed up and began attacking bad guy and the necromancer hadn't caught up to call it off. So I killed the undead mount. The necromancer threw a hissy-fit because he had summoned it with some magic item and wanted the GM to 'punish' me for committing an 'attack another player' act. We needed information from that bad guy. Normally I'm all about "that's my pet, leave it the hell alone", however, I believe this to be extenuating circumstances. Thoughts?

That's a fairly corner and extreme case. And it's something I'd have to judge on the spot, taking into account the total session dynamics. There's a good argument for the problem being the Necromancer's fault for letting his creation get beyond his control range, which he could have easily prevented by expending a personal action to ride the damm mount he summoned.

Unless I see something different it's the Necromancer's own fault he lost his grisly pet, due to him not being on the scene with it.

On the other hand, if it's clear that you did have an alternative method of dealing with the situation without destroying the pet, then the onus is on you to excercise that option first.

[ShadowcatX]

Rhapsodic College Dropout wrote:

I like the concept of necromancers, I really do, but in a "living campaign" where the group makeup can be a bit on the nefarious side one gaming session can easily be a group of devout crusaders the next gaming session I see raising the dead and controlling the dead for personal use as a bit of a monkey wrench in the gears.

Thoughts?

I think playing a character that you know can't get along with a necromancer is the monkey wrench in the gears, not the necromancer himself.

[FLite]

That said, Shadowcat, the necromancer needs to also be able to get along with the Paladin.

That means a little of the paladin holding back what he really wants to do, and a little of the necromancer holding back what he really wants to do.

[Baron Ulfhamr]

Bottom line: your imaginary character and my imaginary character must play nice in the PFS game, imaginary morals aside, or not play.

[The Beard]

FLite wrote:

That said, Shadowcat, the necromancer needs to also be able to get along with the Paladin.

That means a little of the paladin holding back what he really wants to do, and a little of the necromancer holding back what he really wants to do.

Then the paladin should be forced to hold back as well. The activities and codes of a paladin are every bit as disruptive as some guy turning a wolf into an exploding skeleton.

[yumad]

FLite wrote:

Grapple / pin is still technically PVP.

Also the steed is going to now attach the person pinning it probably, so now the necromancer is PVPing the ranger.

Question: He summoned an undead mount to chase down a bad guy they needed to question. Its an undead MOUNT!!!! Why didn't he just ride the darn thing?

Don't be like that, you know very well that grapple/pin wouldn't destroy the undead, thereby not being a permanent solution and not one to annoy the necromancer.

[LazarX]

FLite wrote:

That said, Shadowcat, the necromancer needs to also be able to get along with the Paladin.

That means a little of the paladin holding back what he really wants to do, and a little of the necromancer holding back what he really wants to do.

Did you all forget that the Edenwraith talking about was playing a Ranger? This is not a gods dammed Paladin thread, please don't make it one! This really is about people working together, or failing to do so. The Necromancer in this case was the one who was working out of sync because he let his monster get out of his range of control.

[Chris Mortika]

Just out of curiosity, if a druid had sent her animal companion on ahead, to attack a fleeing enemy, would anyone here think that it would be acceptable for the party warrior to kill the animal companion in a situation analogous to Edenwaith's?

[yumad]

LazarX wrote:

FLite wrote:

That said, Shadowcat, the necromancer needs to also be able to get along with the Paladin.

That means a little of the paladin holding back what he really wants to do, and a little of the necromancer holding back what he really wants to do.

Did you all forget that the Edenwraith talking about was playing a Ranger? This is not a gods dammed Paladin thread, please don't make it one! This really is about people working together, or failing to do so. The Necromancer in this case was the one who was working out of sync because he let his monster get out of his range of control.

Agreed but it also wasn't necessary to slay the undead mount there are other options available. First off I find it highly unlikely that a properly statted skeleton mount would kill an appropriate BBEG so letting the mount beat on him for a little bit might have been okay, or healing him a little bit after. How long did it take the necromancer to get into range?

[LazarX]

yumad wrote:

LazarX wrote:

FLite wrote:

That said, Shadowcat, the necromancer needs to also be able to get along with the Paladin.

That means a little of the paladin holding back what he really wants to do, and a little of the necromancer holding back what he really wants to do.

Did you all forget that the Edenwraith talking about was playing a Ranger? This is not a gods dammed Paladin thread, please don't make it one! This really is about people working together, or failing to do so. The Necromancer in this case was the one who was working out of sync because he let his monster get out of his range of control.

Agreed but it also wasn't necessary to slay the undead mount there are other options available. First off I find it highly unlikely that a properly statted skeleton mount would kill an appropriate BBEG so letting the mount beat on him for a little bit might have been okay, or healing him a little bit after. How long did it take the necromancer to get into range?

You also may have noticed that I would have to make a judgement on the scene with the overall session context. I did not make a message board judgement because I don't feel enough information is available, and quite frankly, I'm not really interested in making one off the cuff. I am however, quite of the opinion that if you don't control the monsters you bring forward, things will happen. If someone's pet is going to cause problems for the party, that someone should not expect a special dispensation for it if he's not in the area to control it.