| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An argument I haven't seen made here yet is that keeping your teammates alive is also a form of self-preservation. The better condition your team is in, the better your chances of survival.
On a personal note, all my Society characters do what they can to help the team, whether they like the others or not.
|
"practicing only those magics which will not result in her final retribution." (or something like that). The Necromancer agrees and the party is off.
I don't see any reason for internet arguments about second-hand after-action reports. It was time to eat the cake. It's unfortunate that it resulted in a dead character, but there'll always be new ones.
Man, have I've had some stupid deaths during these 7 seasons! Favorite one: releasing a swarm upon the party and then missing with every acid flask. TPK!
|
That's your call. I admit I'm chaotic neutral. It's no more being a jerk than letting someone die that you could save.
But than I've saved characters that would have refused healing from a certain evil spell.
I'm not totally sure that this applies but it seems to.
I have had several characters tell their companions at the start of the game "Please do not use infernal healing on me, even to save my life". If the player then did so I'd most certainly consider that a jerk move.
In the case described by the OP, I think (its hard to be sure without being at the table) that the mistake that was made was in continuing AFTER the rogue died and the necromancer raised the zombie. I think that, at that point, the inquisitor should probably have stated something like "My oath to the Society means that I cannot treat you as I wish. But I will not adventure with you. Bye".
Inquisitor continues at that point its his problem.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is also one of the reasons I tend to carry a healing item usable by anyone(clw pot, troll styptic, pot of stabilize etc) on my characters. Had a couple of close calls with characters refusing infernal healing. E.g my magus is a Magaambyanite goodie-two shoes so the very idea is abhorrent.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Screw the faith. You made an oath as a member of the Society, to put your team ahead of your faith based prejudices.
LazarX, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. If anything, Pathfinder agents are expected to put the good of the Society above their personal interests, but certainly not the team. If it comes down to a choice between rescuing a team-mate or recovering a doobis, I know which one earns prestige.
If the Venture Captains were all that gung-ho about making sure your team got home, there would never have been any need for the Shadow Lodge.
|
|
All this points to is this. If your a necromancer at 5th level, memorize a vampiric touch and heal yourself by touching the pharasma worshiper. After all if they won't heal you one way, they will heal you another.That works less than well a -6 hp.
that really is PVP
that really is being a jerk
The more you post, the more I feel like if the necromancer is anything like you, I'd have let him die too.
That's your call. I admit I'm chaotic neutral. It's no more being a jerk than letting someone die that you could save.
But than I've saved characters that would have refused healing from a certain evil spell.
But sadly you can't get a character kicked out of the society because they let party members die.
So call me what you will, and protest that I'd vampiric touch a party member refusing to heal who can. My character will walk away if it comes down to Mr I won't heal or me.
Insert the slurp stray of temporary hp and roll the dice my friend. Even if it means my character goes into retirement, he will be alive to do so.
A vastly better solution would be to walk away from the table. If you are defaulting to attacking other PCs, then I don't think this is the campaign you are looking for. If you are frustrated with another player, you will not attack them.
I'm not totally sure that this applies but it seems to.
I have had several characters tell their companions at the start of the game "Please do not use infernal healing on me, even to save my life". If the player then did so I'd most certainly consider that a jerk move.
In the case described by the OP, I think (its hard to be sure without being at the table) that the mistake that was made was in continuing AFTER the rogue died and the necromancer raised the zombie. I think that, at that point, the inquisitor should probably have stated something like "My oath to the Society means that I cannot treat you as I wish. But I will not adventure with you. Bye".
Inquisitor continues at that point its his problem.
I don't like that concept, but maybe it is the way it is phrased. While the necromancer in the OP should not have died, I don't want to place it in a way where I have to judge whether a player is trying hard enough to keep his companions from dying.
I like what Pirate Rob said best. This is not a problem I want to try to solve in-character.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this points to is this. If your a necromancer at 5th level, memorize a vampiric touch and heal yourself by touching the pharasma worshiper. After all if they won't heal you one way, they will heal you another.That works less than well a -6 hp.
that really is PVP
that really is being a jerk
The more you post, the more I feel like if the necromancer is anything like you, I'd have let him die too.
That's your call. I admit I'm chaotic neutral. It's no more being a jerk than letting someone die that you could save.
But than I've saved characters that would have refused healing from a certain evil spell.
But sadly you can't get a character kicked out of the society because they let party members die.
So call me what you will, and protest that I'd vampiric touch a party member refusing to heal who can. My character will walk away if it comes down to Mr I won't heal or me.
Insert the slurp stray of temporary hp and roll the dice my friend. Even if it means my character goes into retirement, he will be alive to do so.A vastly better solution would be to walk away from the table. If you are defaulting to attacking other PCs, then I don't think this is the campaign you are looking for. If you are frustrated with another player, you will not attack them.
...I'm not totally sure that this applies but it seems to.
I have had several characters tell their companions at the start of the game "Please do not use infernal healing on me, even to save my life". If the player then did so I'd most certainly consider that a jerk move.
In the case described by the OP, I think (its hard to be sure without being at the table) that the mistake that was made was in continuing AFTER the rogue died and the necromancer raised the zombie. I think that, at that point, the inquisitor should probably have stated something like "My oath to the Society means that I cannot treat
Sorry Blaze, but it's just the same as someone who is able to heal who wont. That to me is pvp. You intimate it, and I'll use you as a hp pool to keep myself up.
See everyone makes it out like the necromancer is the bad guy. But it's the healer, inquistor etc who is actually a bad guy.They decided to make a character that would go agaisnt the entirety of the society. The necromancer most likely has zero problems working with others, but than you get holier than thou characters.
They get backed by some rule stating they can't be held accountable because of x.
in all honesty in the 7.0 book I hope the campaign dictates that you can not refuse to heal another pathfinder and thus solve this problem.
Like it or not, if I'm about to die, and the healer isn't doing anything to help with it, and I have the ability to restore hp by vt, than I'm gonna vt.
The straight and honest answer is this. If you stand by and let a party member bleed out, you may have effectively removed that character from play, as they may not have the gold or prestige to come back.
That screams pvp to me, and if I'm running that table I'm gonna tell the player who let someone bleed out. Hey your character is out too. Go talk to the VC and see if they want to over-rule me.
The fact that you have even any defense for a pathfinder allowing another pathfindrr to bleed out, that tells me maybe you aren't right for the campaign.
The Shadow Lodge never forgets.
At least one person in the party did the right thing, and tried to save a fellow adventurer. If I was in that group and I did everything I could to save that necromancer, I honestly would have full out wrecked that pharasma inquistor and then turned my character over to the gm. Least the necromancer wouldn't have been the only person having to cough up prestige and gold to come back.
/soapbox
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry Blaze, but it's just the same as someone who is able to heal who wont. That to me is pvp. You intimate it, and I'll use you as a hp pool to keep myself up.
See everyone makes it out like the necromancer is the bad guy. But it's the healer, inquistor etc who is actually a bad guy.
They decided to make a character that would go agaisnt the entirety of the society. The necromancer most likely has zero problems working with others, but than you get holier than thou characters.
They get backed by some rule stating they can't be held accountable because of x.
in all honesty in the 7.0 book I hope the campaign dictates that you can not refuse to heal another pathfinder and thus solve this problem.
Like it or not, if I'm about to die, and the healer isn't doing anything to help with it, and I have the ability to restore hp by vt, than I'm gonna vt.
The straight and honest answer is this. If you stand by and let a party member bleed out, you may have effectively removed that character from play, as they may not have the gold or prestige to come back.
That screams pvp to me, and if I'm running that table I'm gonna tell the player who let someone bleed out. Hey your character is out too. Go talk to the VC and see if they want to over-rule me.
The fact that you have even any defense for a pathfinder allowing another pathfindrr to bleed out, that tells me maybe you aren't right for the campaign.
The Shadow Lodge never forgets.
At least one person in the party did the right thing, and tried to save a fellow adventurer. If I was in that group and I did everything I could to save that necromancer, I honestly would have full out wrecked that pharasma inquistor and then turned my character over to the gm. Least the necromancer wouldn't have been the only person having to cough up prestige and gold to come back.
/soapbox
I hate neutral characters who are played by someone who really clearly wanted to play an evil character because in my opinion, they are more to make other people less comfortable and troll the table than anything else.
However,
I have no idea what the necromancer stood on that ground and even if that was the case. It if were, the GM should have told him to cut it and move on.
But
even if that wasn't the case, the Inquistor player was in the wrong. I'll say it outright that shouldn't have been allowed to happen
I don't want to see campaign rules requiring people to heal others. I don't want that level of micromanagement where the GM is going to stop me from casting an offensive spell to save my character just so I can go and stabilize another character.
So back up and realize that I'm not defending him as much as encouraging tables to not let their characters devolve into wars of passive aggression.
You however are recommending full out aggression in response and are acting as if you can declare you coup de grace another PC and not have the GM follow up with "Well, thank you, you can leave. Everyone else, that didn't happen." There is no situation, none at all, that you should even expect to connect an attack with another PC and I say you should never want that.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, folks, could we back up a little bit and take a breath? Sin is talking about GMs declaring characters dead and daring Venture Officers to overrule that decision... and other people are calling out one player or another for evil actions, or player-versus-player. People are advocating rewriting the campaign rules so that characters must cast healing spells when other people demand it ...
Let's back up.
There was a conflict. It was at least an in-character conflict. The way the OP describes things, it was an out-of-character conflict, as well.
(One doesn't have to follow from the other. I've had rollicking good times with friends when our characters were getting all sorts of angry with each other. We all knew that it was only in-character.)
Pirate Rob's advice is sound: deal with the out-of-character issues. Don't amke rules about one character having to heal another, or declaring characters dead, or anything else in-character.
I have no idea who these players were, so I'm going to name them Inky (playing the Inquisitor) and Nethro (playing the Necromancer). Nethro's PC is dead, and that's a problem. Inky was ready to walk away from the table some time earlier than that. That's a problem, too. Neither player probably felt happy about the game.
What can people do about that?
I agree that Inky set himself up for problems by building an Inquisitor of Pharasma in a game environment where there will eventually be conflicting PCs, without an escape clause. (My friend plays a nagaji Paladin who is very strict on his Paladin Code, but he cuts the rest of the party a break. "Mammals," he sighs. "Ever hot-blooded. Ever mercurial. Can't even keep their mind on lunch for more than five minutes." ) So, if you build a PC with that kind of strict moral code in PFS< you, too, should have some way to get the other PCs out, in case they offend your character.
I agree with people who say that Nethro takes a good amount of the blame upon himself, by first agreeing not to raise the dead, and then doing so. If your character's schtick is raising the dead, then don't agree to any limits on that. If you do, and if you need to raise dead later on, negotiate that change in the agreement. "Hey, Inky. It looks like I'm going to need to raise this skeleton. I know your character has some problems with that. Can we figure out a compromise?"
When Inky wanted to walk away from the table, that was probably a good idea. The GM should have let him, or perhaps stopped the game and sought to resolve the conflict.
Don't look for blame. Look for solutions.
By the way, the word is "tenet".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like it or not, if I'm about to die, and the healer isn't doing anything to help with it, and I have the ability to restore hp by vt, than I'm gonna vt.
Unfortunately, that is literally against the rules. At any table I have been at, you would be disallowed from casting that spell on a party member (without permission).
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inquistor broke the don't be a dick rule. He basically pvp'd. I'd have had his god rebuke his powers and require an atonement.
So, if someone can heal another PC does not do so, he or she has engaged in PVP? Can you please show me where a character is required to heal another?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was in that group and I did everything I could to save that necromancer, I honestly would have full out wrecked that pharasma inquisitor and then turned my character over to the gm. Least the necromancer wouldn't have been the only person having to cough up prestige and gold to come back.
This is also, literally, impossible in this campaign.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes it's better to anticipate such conflicts and pull out a different character, even if you then play a pregen.
The Inquisitor's player was clear that he wouldn't tolerate the creation of undead, but the Necromancer then "went there". His refusal to subsequently heal the Necromancer was fair. He is no more forced to support the behavior he detests than a paladin of Abadar would be forced to heal up a rogue who had just caused a fight by ripping off items from a bank vault.
My opinions are colored by previous encounters with folks whose behavior was borderline, but who then expected the party to support their thoughtless choices. One example from a game that went horribly awry: A brand new player's rogue impatiently attacked the town watch while the rest of the party was talking with their leader. The party's displeased paladin refused to participate in the ensuing bloodbath. The rogue then ran and hid, leaving the remaining party members in a needless, brutal fight with the watch. The other players were quite angry that the rogue had pulled such a stunt and let him know that he had better not start needless trouble again. The rogue then bailed out of a later fight to "punish" the party for ordering him around.
When that happened, I pulled the player aside and advised him that he was expected to cooperate with the rest of the party. He then quit, claiming that we were "just hack and slash" and wouldn't let him "roleplay". We later concluded that the player had decided to play chaotic evil while claiming chaotic neutral.
|
|
So, if someone can heal another PC does not do so, he or she has engaged in PVP? Can you please show me where a character is required to heal another?
While, it isn't PVP to refuse healing to another PC, it seems very clearly to violate the whole "Don't Be A Dick" rule that PFS has. While I wouldn't expect someone to put their own character at risk to heal me in combat, if it would cost them absolutely nothing to heal or stabilize me (through either a wand or even as little as a stabilize cantrip) then I certainly expect people to heal me or a player at a table I GM. This is a Team Game, if people can't or won't work together than they won't get invited back to a table I run.
Edit: Am I the only one amused how this thread on PVP has devolved into the messeageboard version of PVP? Man, this thread is so meta.
|
Not healing a player could be seen as being a jerk. Playing a necromancer and using undead in a game where everyone will be either good or neutral can also be seen as a jerk move.
I might not have healed him, but I would like to think I would have stabilized him myself.
My question is this: What would have happened if there had been a paladin in the group instead?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every deity provides the opportunity to come in conflict with the party. Pharasma is simply the one that presents the greatest chance. That said, there was an in-character agreement that the necro broke. I don't like that the inquisitor let him die, and I certainly would prefer a better resolution, but it seems a little late for that now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it were a home game, I'd have the necromancer come back and haunt the inquisitor as some form of hard to destroy undead. But, this is NOT a home game, this is PFS.
On the one hand, I can see why people are upset. The growth, care, and time spent leveling a character can be somewhat grueling, intense, or nail biting in some cases. Quite a few scenarios have some nasty reputations for TPKs and other levels of death. Sometimes it might take all of your prestige just to survive or heal up between scenarios. People become attached to their characters. And in this case, many of these characters were close to middle-aged, almost being level 6.
However, both players made mistakes, not just the inquisitor in question.
First of all, if you make an agreement before the game starts, that to me counts as handling the problem out of game. You already agreed to not cause trouble by not doing x action. In this case raising undead. It should have stopped right there. There should have been no further issues. THAT IS handling the problem out of character. If the wizard had never agreed to that, then this problem may not have been as bad. The inquisitor could have left, or pulled out a pregen. So could the wizard. But no, an agreement was made.
Secondly, the necromancer then broke that IC and OOC agreement. They broke the don't be a jerk rule first. The inquisitor in this case COULD have walked away as a player and took the hit of the failed scenario. And, honestly, I wouldn't have blamed him. This would have been an acceptable solution.
Thirdly, and this is where the problem is, the Inquisitor then decided without warning that he would not heal the Necromancer. *sigh* While this does skirt the Don't Be a Jerk rule, it's not actually illegal to hold back your own resources. Otherwise why would many martial characters buy a wand of healing with two prestige to hand to the healer or UMD expert? I think as many others said, he should have mentioned he would not spend these resources on the wizard once the undead was summoned, then, the inquisitor would have at least had some ground to stand on in his actions.
Finally, with the stabilize comments. The inquisitor might not have had that Orison to begin with. Might not have had ranks in heal. We don't know the full details on that part. Yes, it would have been extremely odd for this to be the case, but it is a possibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though I don't play PFS I can say that in a home game I would have done very much the same.
The necromancer was warned, and proceeded to raise the dead anyways. Obviously this creates in character tension. It is appropriate in character for the inquisitor not to want to help someone that so grossly offends the code of his god.
Now, obviously this creates problems with players too. And in PFS, it is more harsh than a home game. I can see it a bit from both sides.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I clearly can't speak for anyone else, but we always found dealing with situations like these to be remarkably easy.
Player of Inquisitor: "Hey Player of Necromancer! Because my PC is a very devout worshiper of Pharasma, assume that he is pretty constantly voicing his negative opinion of your undead raising and chastising your lack of observation to Pharasma's morals. Because I have no interest in harassing you as a Player though, just bear in mind that is taking place in the background. As we are both Pathfinders though, he cooperates with you."
Player of Necromancer: "Hey man, np! Let's say that the Necromancer is not so forceful of his opinions on you, but replies coldly and with little care for your values on that particular topic. As we are both Pathfinders though, he cooperates with you."
Everyone: Proceeds with the game without further incident.
Now while that might not be 100% in line with required ethos, individual PC motivation, ect. it's just the easiest way to go without someone having a bad experience out of character. Any GM who seeks to enforce codes of ethics that would result in conflict between party members in the medium of PFS is just being ridiculous.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a Black Necromancer at a PFS table is a jerk move to begin with. This is not one of those borderline "you can argue you're using their own power against them" things like Infernal Healing - raising undead is unambiguously and almost irredeemably evil, and doing it at a PFS table is the sort of thing that should get a character tagged Evil on the spot. Especially after the necromancer was warned, gave his word, and then broke it just to provoke the inquisitor - I really can't place any blame on the inquisitor here, they already handled it OOC and IC, then the necromancer player decided to be a jerk and violate the agreement.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still see the inquisitor did nothing wrong. 'Don't raise dead around me, as my GOD who gives me the divine abilities to heal you is so abjectly against the practice. If you do so, I WILL NOT be healing you.'
Game progresses, dead are raised, Necromancer is not healed. To me, it is the same as if the Necromancer had killed himself. The consequences were clearly spelled out. He knew that if he took this action that he would be responsible for his own healing.
If, however, the inquisitor did NOT warn him and just did not heal him when the time came, then I would put some fault on him. Just as having to get an atonement or lose your character due to an evil act without first being warned by the GM, it is unfair to expect people to accept consequences they are unaware of.
If I can not tell someone to not use their abilities (Raising Dead, catching me in a color spray or burning hands, or standing where I intend to throw a fireball preventing me from doing so after being warned), then I can not be told when I have to use my own.
People need to realize that no PVP does not mean no consequences.
Just my opinion; but if you sit at my table and I voice a concern and then inform you that stealing that cripple's money or raising my friend as a zombie will result in my not healing you, please believe it.
S.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a Black Necromancer at a PFS table is a jerk move to begin with. This is not one of those borderline "you can argue you're using their own power against them" things like Infernal Healing - raising undead is unambiguously and almost irredeemably evil, and doing it at a PFS table is the sort of thing that should get a character tagged Evil on the spot. Especially after the necromancer was warned, gave his word, and then broke it just to provoke the inquisitor - I really can't place any blame on the inquisitor here, they already handled it OOC and IC, then the necromancer player decided to be a jerk and violate the agreement.
Playing a necromancer is a legal choice in PFS, and there's nothing jerkish about wanting to play an immoral/shady character in a campaign who's overriding goal is "Go out and get the artifact, I don't care how".
If the necromancer's zombie hordes can get through the dungeon and snag the Eye of renlack the society will pin a medal on his chest, not put a stake in his heart.The society isn't the shining crusade and isn't the harpers. Its grim , gritty, shady, and outright mercenary organization that manages to be the good better guys mostly by the dint of how bad the aspis consortium is. A necromancer fits in just fine.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
To me there isn't any in game reasons that could justify being that cruel to someone else's character. You really have to have quite a lack of empathy to let someone's level 5 race boon character die for no other reason than you felt like it.
Does it count as a race boon character if it is grandfathered from when they were free to everyone?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me there isn't any in game reasons that could justify being that cruel to someone else's character. You really have to have quite a lack of empathy to let someone's level 5 race boon character die for no other reason than you felt like it.Does it count as a race boon character if it is grandfathered from when they were free to everyone?
I would consider it a race boon character if it would require a race boon to recreate the character.
|
|
Playing a necromancer is a legal choice in PFS, and there's nothing jerkish about wanting to play an immoral/shady character in a campaign who's overriding goal is "Go out and get the artifact, I don't care how".
If the necromancer's zombie hordes can get through the dungeon and snag the Eye of renlack the society will pin a medal on his chest, not put a stake in his heart.The society isn't the shining crusade and isn't the harpers. Its grim , gritty, shady, and outright mercenary organization that manages to be the
goodbetter guys mostly by the dint of how bad the aspis consortium is. A necromancer fits in just fine.
Immoral and shady are one things. Raising undead is another, and makes your average wanton murderer look like Mother Theresa - it's not just a little evil, it is channeling the very essence of wrongness and making it take form.
There are lots of things that the Society does that PCs do not - PCs are held to a different level. For example, the Paracountess may be LE, but PCs cannot be. I'd consider this one of those types of things - the Society may tolerate it if it helps them reach their goals, but they probably aren't going to openly condone it or approve of it (or punish someone for objecting to it), and it's not something that should be tolerated of a PC. I'm very tolerant of a lot of things, and Lily is a rather unabashedly immoral character herself (not a killer, but she pays no heed to manipulating the minds of other beings using magic), but necromancy is one thing I consider completely over the line. So yes, it's currently permitted... but that actually surprises me, I thought it wasn't, and I think it shouldn't be.
|
|
You can't play an immoral character in PFS. You must be good or neutral aligned. Immoral means evil.
Neutral can be pretty immoral.
Creating undead is an evil act in Golarion.
Yes it is. But such acts are not deemed evil enough in organized play to bother keeping track of, and thus are freely castable.
Routinely doing evil acts makes you an evil person. You can't play someone who routinely creates undead.
You can.
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues.
Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. Using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
I can't possibly define what every evil act could be. That is why I rely on GM discretion. But simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself.
You have a lot of room to bend the alignment rules in PFS, but if your basic concept is "I'm a black necromancer" then your basic concept is also "I am an evil guy who does evil things" and trouble will ensue.
"I don't care about good and evil i just care about effective" is a perfectly valid neutral alignment. Zombies aren't alive, don't feel pain, fear, or terror so why not send them to find traps instead of the poor rogue? (or animal companion...)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Is anybody advocating that it would have been more acceptable to let the necromancer bleed out if the character were human or gnome, but that tieflings should get special handling because they now require a boon to play?
Because, if that's your position, my response is a snort. As a GM, I don't go hunting to kill off race-boon PCs, but they don't get any protection from their own foolishness, either. Not even goblins. Not even fetchlings.
|
|
Is anybody advocating that it would have been more acceptable to let the necromancer bleed out if the character were human or gnome, but that tieflings should get special handling because they now require a boon to play?
Because, if that's your position, my response is a snort. As a GM, I don't go hunting to kill off race-boon PCs, but they don't get any protection from their own foolishness, either. Not even goblins. Not even fetchlings.
I think they were discussing how the other players—not the GM—might feel a greater obligation to keep another player's tiefling around. Maybe it is still snort-worthy, but I certainly feel this way when I'm a player sitting at a table with another player's limited access character.
Even as a GM, I must admit that I felt horrible after I killed off a brand new level 1 aasimar about a week after the grandfathering window. (A crossbow hit, followed by a crossbow critical hit, in round 1 of encounter 1.) When I have killed other 1st-level characters, I tell the player, "He's at first level, so you really aren't out much. Just rebuild him if you liked him." That consolation isn't there for characters that cannot be rebuilt.
|
|
Chris, I would be willing to try and see if literally means the same thing to me, as it does you. 8)
I think up at least 5 different impossible things before breakfast after all.
Also, yes I really do want to see in the 7.0 guide. If you can save a player after combat ends with healing, you have to.
The fact that anyone here, will defend a character that will refuse to heal a fellow pathfinder for any reason, are quite terrible.
This is a team game. If you have a character that wont contribute, or cooperate than you should retire that character, because it isn't what society is about.
You dont have to like a person, or a character, but if you go out as a team, you best have each others backs. Refusing to heal a dying ally - to me means you've done the equivalent of pvp. If you want to complain about you wont use any of your resources, it's great that if you have stabilize it costs nothing.
If you however, after combat is over, refuse to even use stabilize on your dying comrade, than you should be the one to pay the prestige to bring your comrade back.
The refusal to cast a single clw, resulting in 20pp, or 6k gold for someone to come back, is pvp. You have decided to impose fines on someone, or kill their character out of vindictiveness.
That violates every tenant of Society that I at least believe in, and yes I would declare my character an npc, and attempt to drop someone who would do that to a fellow comrade without blinking an eye.
If you have issue with what I'm declaring, but no issue over someone letting a fellow Society member die, than you are the problem, because as people state, what my solution is, is impossible.
|
|
That's personal opinion though. Perfectly fine as a GM ruling in a home game, but since PFS allows necromancers creating undead, it's not actually an evil act in the PFS campaign.
Your character can dislike it, but you need to Cooperate at the table or play a different character.So you are saying that 1) This is no longer a role playing game, where I am free to play the character I run; but instead a live action MMO where I play a 'toon' to get the most gold and loot. 2) If someone is allowed to play something, then I should be obligated to use my resources / abilities to keep them alive / help them despite warning them not to catch the entire group in the splash of a bomb or not to stand in the aoe of my fireball, which led to another PC dying?
I can not:
Attack another PC and manacle him if I believe he has broken the law
Knock out a character that I have told time and time again not to do damage to me via careless positioning of his AOE's
and you are now telling me that I have to use wand charges or give up my own actions to keep them alive?
Let it be said that I have never had to carry through with my threat to not aid or heal those whose characters have gone against my God's tenants or endangered the lives of my group mates carelessly, after fair warning; often the threat is enough or they decide that their action is important enough to warrant my indifference to their plight.
Now, if we make rules against this, then noone has to deal with any consequences at all outside of 2 PP for an atonement and honestly, the game becomes poorer for it.
S.
|
|
I can not:
Attack another PC and manacle him if I believe he has broken the law
Wow. No. Very much no you cannot do that. You cannot impose your characters adherence to law on the party and you cannot impose your players views on the other players like that. No PVP combat, especially for that. Pathfinders break the law all the time.
Knock out a character that I have told time and time again not to do damage to me via careless positioning of his AOE's
I'd consider the AOEs pvp
|
|
I can not:
Attack another PC and manacle him if I believe he has broken the lawWow. No. Very much no you cannot do that. You cannot impose your characters adherence to law on the party and you cannot impose your players views on the other players like that. No PVP combat, especially for that. Pathfinders break the law all the time.
Knock out a character that I have told time and time again not to do damage to me via careless positioning of his AOE'sI'd consider the AOEs pvp
Yes, wolf I know that, I was listing the things that according to no PVP rules, I could not do in order to express my displeasure at another character's actions. I realize that may have not been clear.
S.