RSX Raver's page

RSX Raver wrote:

That is an official errata to the Blood of Night book from a Paizo developer. So if you are using the book then it would read +2 dex, +2 int, -2 wis.

Again, no. Here's Mark Seifter (currently working for Paizo as a Designer) on the subject:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Kamiizumi Nobutsuna wrote:

So, I still confusd.

I "should" follow SKR, jason...'s word.
OR
I make the rule more "clear" by their word.

Different between them are "Should or not"

If in PF, I can ask my GM.
But in PFS, GM "should" follow the rule, no matter personal will.

You should follow any SKR ruling from before the Pathfinder Design Team account was created. As those are 'official'. Also, you must follow any post by the Pathfinder Design Team, those are as official as FAQs. Though, that account is usually used to declare a FAQ was posted.

No personal designer posts are official, whether or not they were before the PDT account was created (Stephen posted to that effect, I think after something in a Mounted Combat thread that I was participating in as a fan at the time). You don't need to search for any of our old posts. That said, the PFS staff official posts are binding, as others have said above.

If it isn't a post by the PDT account or the PFS staff, it isn't binding, period.

That would be good info to put into the Guild Guide.

Also is there a difference between a "designer" and a "developer"?

RSX Raver wrote:

Actually it is not a can. It has been errated, check this link

That is neither a post from the Pathfinder Design Team, and thus not official errata as far as PFS is concerned, nor is it a post from the PFS campaign team, and thus not an official clarification.

Which is to say, per PFS rules, if you're using Blood of the Night to gain access to vetala-born dhampirs, you use the stats actually printed in that book; if you're using Inner Sea Races to gain access, you use the stats printed in that book; if you have both books, you can choose which version to use.

That is an official errata to the Blood of Night book from a Paizo developer. So if you are using the book then it would read +2 dex, +2 int, -2 wis.

Actually it is not a can. It has been errated, check this link

Wait... dockworkers really ARE the true enemy!

RSX Raver wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

You get one pocket scorpion. It sits in your robes and gives you a small static bonus.

I once played with another player whose pocket scorpion was actually a codpiece scorpion, it helped motivate him to act faster.

This is why druids can't have ranks in profession: personal trainer.

Chad the Druid: Not saying I will turn into a large bear and maul you if you do not give me another 10 reps, but I am a level 12 Druid, you do the math.

You get one pocket scorpion. It sits in your robes and gives you a small static bonus.

I once played with another player whose pocket scorpion was actually a codpiece scorpion, it helped motivate him to act faster.

Le Enigmax wrote:

Q: Can the mount move, READY action to move again after rider full round attack? This will circumvent the -4 penalty. By right, Eidolon uses a separate inits

No. Seperate initiatives are separate AND sequential. 'Ready' is an action (readying an action) unto itself. The Mount can do this but it will occur in the following round. Yes, that seems confusing. It is the GMs job to interpret what the players ask for and adjudicate fairly, faithfully trying to do what they request within the rules. You can say, "yes, your ready will likely go off next round."

This is incorrect, per the Mounted Combat rules in the Combat section your mount acts on your initiative. This is very clearly stated. Link to PRD

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

I love mounted characters, but it is threads like this one that prevent me from using reach weapons in PFS play with my mounted builds.

One of the reasons that FAQ about both rider and mount are considered charging if either charges, was to prevent Vital Strike shenanigans that were going on. So it is unfortunate that it is now being used to prevent the most basic and common use of a lance.

I agree with many of the other GMs here, it is part of the GMs job to look at something as broken as the mounted combat rules and make the sensible rulings that will make it function as a legitimate build option.

Two weapon feint exists and pulls twf feint with sneak attack into useable territory.

These is what I do with TWF+two weapon feint, give up first attack, feint, take 3+ attacks with sneak. Very feat intensive though.

Give the guy a break, geesh.

This.

Also with Feint being unused often(I have a two weapon feint build in an AP so I had to get real familiar, but my GM had to read the rules again the first time it came up), I know many experienced GMs that fail to remember all the nuances of how it works without having to reference the CRB.

Do not present it as if all of the players were on your side during the ruling, at least two said that they could see it being read either way.

Remember though, someone seeing why you are understanding the rule a way, and agreeing with your ruling are different things. Plenty of times I have seen a GM rule in a manner against the way a mechanic worked because of the wording Pathfinder likes to use is not always clear. I understood why they misunderstood, but that did not mean I agreed with them.

As a GM I also know that it is a littler harder to want to hear the player's side of things when they are being combative. As the rest of us were not present for the game, there is no way to know how the interactions had been up to that point, though it does sound like maybe it was a bit tense.

On the brightside, you probably will not forget how feinting works going forward.

FAQ

You and your mount charge simultaneously. You occupy all squares of your mount, and must stop at the limit of your reach (10 feet for a normal medium rider with a lance). If your mount also has 10 foot reach then it can also make a charge attack, otherwise it can't.

The FAQ does not state you stop at your reach.

Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge

That last part tells me the mount must make a complete charge as well.

There is no official clarification to the mounted combat rules on this. It is interesting that if you charge so does your mount Link . As the mount is the one moving , it should not stop it's charge until has moved to a legal space and it attacks. Having RBA does make this a moot point. I would rule the charge would end with your mount in a location that makes a legal charge, either adjacent to the enemy, or at reach if it has reach.

When I play amounted character I find mounted combat is handled differently from table to table, so I like to talk to the GM before the game to know what to expect.

I've changed the title of this thread, if only so that I can stop seeing it every day and thinking "oh, did we issue another armor pricing FAQ today?"

Picturing what that moment of the day looks like is making me smile and laugh.

RSX Raver wrote:

This scenario is replayable at 1st level only. Source per John Compton

If you look further down the thread, the same question being asked here was asked there, and it has yet to be answered.

Are you saying a Pre-Gen is not a character?

If there was such thing as a PFS legal level 2 Pre-gen would you think you could play that through Wounded Wisp and then downgrade that sheet?

If you played this above level 1 already, then playing it again with a level 4 pre-gen would be replaying as a none level 1.

This scenario does not give rewards based on tier played, it gives them based on character level specifically. It does not make sense to allow the downgrade rules to work on it. Without leadership specifically allowing it, I would not say it is okay to do.

This scenario is replayable at 1st level only. Source per John Compton

Here is the FAQ you will want to have on hand: FAQ

My Thunder and Fang Ulfen has a steel klar, (which is allowed per Ultimate Equipment) that looks like a small dragon skull instead of a lizard, as it offers no mechanical benefit.

andreww wrote:

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Especially useful for wands, which are not weapons, so otherwise require a full-round action to "fish" from your backpack.

Wands are explicitly weapon like and can therefore be drawn as part of a move action.

In addition retrieving a stored item is a move action, not full round, although it does provoke.

Hmm....Okay, so does retriving the stored item equip it, or would I need two move actions (one to retrieve and one to draw)? I may be mixing up full-round actions with double move actions turns. Either way, happy to be wrong here.

You can draw a sword as part of a move and then use it immediately as a standard. There is no "Equip" action. If you have your weapon in hand or hands, it is then usable unless something specifically prevents it. This is also true for a wand. If you draw your wand as part of a movement, you can then activate it with your standard.

Also here is the official FAQ that backs up andreww: FAQ

Wand of Mount if you can activate it consistently, some of the best 2PP I have ever spent. Very versatile to the keen user.

Jared Thaler wrote:

rknop wrote:

My heartburn isn't over the specific cost, or even what the specific rule is. (I don't have any armored animal companions, so I don't have a horse, or a dinosaur, or an elephant) in this race. My heartburn is over the fact that this FAQ contradicts lots of rules that have shown up other places, including several examples in the CRB. Pathfinder is a complicated and fiddly enough game as it is without having FAQs come out and make text in the CRB and elsewhere incorrect.

No it doesn't. In the threads where this has come up, people have gone looking again and again for examples. The only example found so far has been the pricing on a chronicle sheet, and it matches this FAQ.

The first example I thought of was Hell's Gavel from ** spoiler omitted **.

The low-tier is a large, cold iron weapon. Priced the "old" way. The high tier is a large magical weapon, priced incorrectly in either scheme. It is priced as a medium weapon.

** spoiler omitted **

your math seems to not include the extra 2,000 gp to enchant cold iron.

Yet another FAQ that seems to punish people using AC. Getting rid of the Fitting enchantment will just make people with ACs even more disadvantaged on top of the magic item rules. It also means taking Mammoth Rider becomes a terrible fit for PFS due to gold limitations.

Why does campaign leadership hate my wolf?

Removed a sniping post and the reply to it.

To provide some insight: the entire company is in the midst of preparing for Gen Con, where we're releasing an all new game and Organized Play campaign. This is an all-hands-on-deck effort, and we understand that folks are antsy to find out what new things they can use for their characters. We appreciate your patience as we push to get ducks in a row here.

However, it's really not productive to start picking apart our staffing resources here, or to make assumptions about our web development environment. For clarification: I am not strictly part of the "web team" (you can find a relatively accurate breakdown of our departments on the Contact Us page, if this is something you're curious about), but actually have a hand in a number of jars (some relevant to community, operations, marketing, and web). I can however assure you that as part of our leadup to Gen Con, we are looking at ways to smooth out parts of the process to getting things on the website once Org Play has completed them.

I do not think this is picking apart your staffing. I think that you guys at Paizo know that the majority of the community wants to see updates more regularly and it has not been happening. Fact is, your web team is not big, Paizo as a whole is not a big company in terms of employees (As the link you provided shows). Also, as you said yourself, you are not strictly just web team, you have your time split among a number of responsibilities. We have had numerous reports in the past where campaign leadership says they are done with their part and it is waiting in the que to get pushed out (maybe that is the web team's que, maybe that is another team's) but that points at resource deficiency. That is not a bad thing per say because it means there is lots of things to do and Paizo is growing (like adding Starfinder!). That is good for the player base, it means you guys are not going anywhere any time soon. However as a customer who spends a lot of money with Paizo as a company (Books, Minis, APs, Scenarios, etc.) I feel you guys can do better and probably need more resources to do so.

The problem in this thread is that people are prioritizing the update to Additional Resources, when I'm pretty sure updating the actual website to accommodate Starfinder is Paizo's priority.

So, sure, Campaign Leadership may be done with everything on their end, and the actual uploading of it may take mere hours, but doing that is #476 in the queue of total work being done.

I think people prioritize the updating of the AR page because they buy products they want to use in PFS. Some players can only play Pathfinder in a PFS situation, which makes the justification that they can use them in home games less reasonable.

I for instance pay for the subscription because it is the best value for getting the product, and I personally think 4 updates a year to the AR page is unacceptable for a company. If they are struggling to meet their consumers' needs due to insufficient resources, then Paizo needs to hire more resources. And this is not the first time we heard that the web team has more tasks then man hours to do in a timely fashion. This problem is a Paizo issue, not a campaign leadership fault or the fault of the web team.

WANT:
Aasimar

HAVE:
Vanara
Tiefling

Have: Vanara

Want: Aasimar

RSX Raver wrote:

Did you plan to use the Klar+EB or do double EB? I have a Thunder and Fang fighter (using Klar and EB) that I went Viking with and I really enjoy it.

Klar and earth breaker - the Campaign Clarification for Varisia, Birthplace of Legends makes it tricky to use it to dual-wield earth breakers in Pathfinder Society.

I'm more likely to just switch to ranger or slayer at this point. I wanted skills as well as strength, and without lore warden...

EDIT: Ironically, I may start with one level of lore warden for the class skills and bonus feat.

I had considered levels of Ranger but ultimately decided to go the route of a more tanky build. The Shield Defense ability and Berserker are both nice.

RSX Raver wrote:

I did not say it did not, I said that I agree one of the reasons it is played was because of that feature.

Fair enough - the phrasing in both your post and Hmm's made it seem like folks were bemoaning its loss.

RSX Raver wrote:

I feel the new version takes away too much now in exchange for very little beyond the skill points. If I am taking levels of fighter it is likely because I need more feats to make some janky concept function in PFS, effectively losing 2 feats with the new version is not great.

I don't wholly disagree. That 2nd-level ability is painful. (In fact, the reason I cancelled my lore warden is because I can no longer get Thunder And Fang at 2nd level.)

I feel it would have been reasonable to get what we got for just bravery, or to lock in Combat Expertise as the 2nd-level feat.

Did you plan to use the Klar+EB or do double EB? I have a Thunder and Fang fighter (using Klar and EB) that I went Viking with and I really enjoy it.

ok, so why aren't you posting, instead of the guys who aren't playing Lore Wardens?

I am, I really hope they grandfather in the old version. It will be incredibly annoying to rebuild characters if this nerf does not do that. I honestly would be fine with the new build IF they did not lose the 2nd level feat on top of the other changes.

Gudrun the Reader wrote:

Muse. wrote:

wait... has anyone still on this thread actually MADE a Lore Warden?

Hello!

I'm a trip / reposition focused librarian.

Which has me currently at 8 levels of Lore Warden

Feels like Fighters Anonymous in here

Hi, Gudrun!

Hello, I play Marc Langley (Earl in Taldor), and I'm a Lore Warden. I focus on Trip/Disarm, with a minor in Grapple.

I have a number of Lore Wardens, I like skill points and fun builds that need Combat Expertise for silly feats.

RSX Raver wrote:

They lost Appraise as a class skill, which honestly is a little weird to give them everything else Int based. I agree with HMM, Lore Warden was a excellent fit for PFS because the skill points made them viable in more situations. Having played a core fighter in Library of the Lion and the like, it was really not fun to be unable to contribute effectively to all those skill checks due to lack of points.

...which it still has. Losing Appraise didn't take away the two extra skill points per level. It's still there, on page 144 of the Adventurer's Guide.

I did not say it did not, I said that I agree one of the reasons it is played was because of that feature. I feel the new version takes away too much now in exchange for very little beyond the skill points. If I am taking levels of fighter it is likely because I need more feats to make some janky concept function in PFS, effectively losing 2 feats with the new version is not great.

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

My theory is that the real reason why the Lore Warden is so popular was the skill points. Playing a full fighter in PFS is just too painful with 2+Int/Level. Now people will just go off and dip with brawlers and bloodragers instead.

The Lore Warden was an excellent fit for PFS play, and that should be no surprise since it's a Pathfinder Society Archetype. It wasn't the best fighter archetype... but its skill points made it the best fit for PFS.

Hmm

I'm pretty sure it didn't lose any of that. Just a couple of class skills around the edges.

They lost Appraise as a class skill, which honestly is a little weird to give them everything else Int based. I agree with HMM, Lore Warden was a excellent fit for PFS because the skill points made them viable in more situations. Having played a core fighter in Library of the Lion and the like, it was really not fun to be unable to contribute effectively to all those skill checks due to lack of points.

RSX Raver wrote:

Isabelle Lee wrote:

shaventalz wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

*torches pitchforks, get em here , you know prices are just going to skyrocket soon...*

Ooh, nice. Where'd you get the stats for a pitchfork? Is that from Adventurer's Armory 2?

Tragically, statting up pitchforks as weapons didn't even occur to me.

Next time. ^_^

Clearly a Ustalav themed Player Companion needs to be made just so we can have the pitchfork and angry mob mechanics.

Maybe with an archetype dedicated to dual-wielding said weapons?

Pitchfork and Torch dual wielding, commoner archetype called One of the Herd.

shaventalz wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

*torches pitchforks, get em here , you know prices are just going to skyrocket soon...*

Ooh, nice. Where'd you get the stats for a pitchfork? Is that from Adventurer's Armory 2?

Tragically, statting up pitchforks as weapons didn't even occur to me.

Next time. ^_^

Clearly a Ustalav themed Player Companion needs to be made just so we can have the pitchfork and angry mob mechanics.

Is there any value in continuing this thread?

Rysky, since much of this centers around your specific concerns of playing a Paladin in PFS (or at this point playing in PFS at all), do you feel there is more to be gained from this continued talking in circles?

Enchantment isn't in and of itself evil, but Paladins that follow beliefs of freedom and/or deities that do would probably have a problem with them.

Th PCs who that the Paladon should have a problem with, if its actually those crimes.

... you seriously think that Paladins should have more problems with characters that are Chaotic than Evil?? Really?

Read the Associates and Code section, it mentions Evil, no where does it talk about Chaotic.

You failed to get that Nosig was mentioning the frequency of traveling with plenty of people that should violate the Associates clause who are neither necromancers or devil summoners.

Honestly Rysky, you have made this a personal crusade in both threads and are championing something you personally believe in that is not shared by the majority. Just because you do not like necromancers, does not mean they do not belong in PFS, or in The Society as a whole. There is plenty of examples of role playing/story evidence that indicate the Pathfinder Society would employ unsavory and evil types. If that is not a game system you can be part of, then that is your choice and there are plenty of other options.

So I've been trying to stay out of these "alignment" threads because they never go well and no one's mind is ever changed. But I do feel moved to respond to this.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Rysky wrote:

And the "doesn't make it true" isn't actually correct, since the Associates part of Paladin say they have to atone regularly if they work (for the greater good) with someone who is Evil or who offends their moral code.

I'd assume the society covers this if it becomes an issue (and have joked as much before)

Your character is only responsible for the things your player makes them do in the adventure. You're fine.

No.

There's nothing in the Guide, nothing in the FAQ, and nothing in any post by Campaign Leadership I have seen that says "You get a free pass on the strictures of your class because it is Organized Play."

Playing a divine class is hard. It's not just plugging in the class features you like. You have to live with the fact that those powers are coming from a divine source that holds you to a high standard. And will take those powers away if you don't meet his or her standard.

But this is far less of a problem than it appears on the messageboards. In well over 400 tables of Pathfinder Society I've seen conflict by divine code a handful of times. An inquisitor of Pharasma at the same table as an undead animator. An Andoran cleric of Cayden Cailen at the same table as a character who not only uses profession (slaver) but takes slaves with him everywhere. A paladin being given a mission that is clearly "break the law." In all but one of the cases it was sorted out amicably by one or more people changing characters. And in that case it was a player who said "I don't care what it does to you, I'm bringing the character I want to," forcing the other player to change without even a chance to discuss. (That player was not a nice person and after many talks and chances was shunned by the community.) The point is: don't try to fix a problem by removing...

Not overly hard to play a divine class, since a cleric does not have to follow a code, and there are no rules for "falling" as a cleric. Paladins have a specific code or they will fall. However the Code of Conduct section in the CRB does not include the section listed under the Associates section. The section on Ex-paladins is very explicit of the handful of things that cause you to fall, and partying with someone that does not follow your code is not one of them. Also there is a pile of different paladin codes based on the different gods which have vastly differing rules. The primary issue here is that everyone is incorrectly combining two class features and treating them as the same thing for a paladin. Code of Conduct is a class feature and Associates is a separate class feature. You will see no mention of the class feature associates under the class feature of ex-paladins, therefore in organized play, per RAW, you do not fall for partying with someone who breaks your code.

Edit: Spelling and grammar.

Dash 27 wrote:

Ok, this thread has convinced me to create a Necromancer Paladin... so, would that make him a Necroladin or a Palamancer?

Totally legal. And there is a way to generate Lawful Good Undead within PFS....

That Skeleton Summoner feat from UM is PFS legal. Let's you summon undead with summon monster. As per summon monster, summoned creatures have the alignment of the summoner. Additionally, since undead lack the evil subtype (inherently, some undead have it anyway), it does not make the spell evil, so no risk of falling.

Good way to get Deathless from 3.5 into the Pathfinder Setting.

Though regarding the mix of classes, I suggest a CHA based caster, instead of the Wizard Necromancer, just because it will mix with a Paladin's stats better. A Sorcerer, Oracle, or Summoner could make for a decent pairing with a Paladin.

Not every monster summoned shares your alignment, you can not summon a LG devil or elemental that way for instance. A lot of the list is summoned with your alignment, but just be careful there.

I'm not saying all Paladin characters are okay with killing, I'm saying the Paladin class itself has no problems with it.

I would consider the Associates thing a part of their code (little c) since it's telling them what they can and can't do.

Associates wrote:

While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.[/b] A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

If it's saying you should regularly seek atonement and immediately break things off if it's not serving the greater good that kinds seems like you would fall if you hang around a necromancer raising the undead just for funsies.

That is great that you want to take it that way, but the class was not written that it is part of the code. And like Fromper pointed out, it is not forbidden and can happen if the greater good demands it. In fact I just says avoids, that is not absolute language by any stretch. I avoid eating olives, I will not stop being me if I eat one. Honoring an oath to the society and having to work with the NOT evil aligned Necromancer is by no means hanging out for "funsies".

The vanilla Paladin doesn't a problem putting down evil things, you can be a pacifist redeemer Paladin and there are Deities that back that up, but they're not the default.

"And since they swore an oath to "Explore, Report, Cooperate", breaking that oath by refusing to cooperate would actually violate their paladin code."

What, no they wouldn't. The Code also says they can't ally with Evil but then PFS says Evil effectively doesn't exist is the only reason that crops since otherwise every Necromancer creating undead would be Evil.

What kind of scenario is "I must work with Evil or Fall, but if I work with Evil I also Fall"???

Working for the greater good actually means the greater good, not just complete this mission so we can get rewards.

That's another thing I don't like that PFS enforces, encouraging Players and Characters to treat undead as slight annoyances rather than monsters, rather than people's corpses getting desecrated.

Have you noticed multiple people have told you that this is YOUR take on the paladin and not shared by everyone? You act like every paladin behaves the exact same way, which is like a jerk from the way you portray them. In PFS your paladin has to follow a deity, if you are so insistent on "role play" then you should also follow that specific deity's paladin code.

Also the generic paladin code does not say that they can not associate with evil. In fact the part about not associating with evil is not even part of the code at all. The section called Code of Conduct (CRB Pg. 63) is separate from the section called Associates (CRB Pg. 64). If you look under the rules for Ex-Paladin you will see if calls out the Code of Conduct but not the Associates sections.

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield

proficiencies).

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Rysky wrote:

No, Undead are monsters. Just because a Neutral person sees it as "efficient" doesn't change that.

And the restrictions you suggest are not "things they should be doing anyway". A Paladin of Sarenrae, maybe. The others? Not so much.

So for your non-sarenae Paladins and followers are Pharasma, are you role playing them pro-death, just anti-undeath? Does your Paladin sit atop a pile of corpses?

Trying to parse that, yes, Paladins have no problem killing things that need killing.

Almost all of your comments seem to point towards you believe every character views the undead as a problem. You as the player are injecting that sentiment into all your characters, which sounds less like role playing and more like personal belief.

Also Paladins as you are portraying them should absolutely have problems being forced to resort to killing. Several Paladin codes say that killing should be the last resort and that taking life in general is rarely a good thing. You seem to cherry pick the parts of the code you believe in while ignoring others.

re horizontalize

It is words like this that make me enjoy BNW's posts.

Rysky wrote:

It's still making Undead, which a lot of people take issue with.

Ok, at this point I'm pretty sure this whole thread is going in circles faster then water down a toilet bowl. I'm also pretty sure any semblence of debate is over and the most undead thing here is the thread itself.

This debate was over before it began very likely. Gamers are notoriously stubborn and once they have their opinion they will defend it to the death. Nothing short of direct input from an official source can sort this out, and probably not even that.

Except it is.

Paladin or Follower of Pharasma/Sarenrae, I must destroy Undead.

I am unable to stop the creation of Undead due to metagame constructs.

I am unable to stop Undead due to metagame constructs.

I must work with the person making Undead due to metagame contracts.

Due to metagame constructs, I have willingly failed my goddess.

You seem to forget that those meta-game constraints you are complaining about, also prevent my necromancer from flat out killing your meddling paladin or cleric and raising it to be another member of the horde. Why is the argument always about how the meta constrains the poor paladin/cleric? Everyone is held to constraints by the rules of PFS and the game. If you do not like that fact so much and role play is such a major priority, then only play in home games where is stops being an issue. Otherwise we should all be adults and play nice together.

Edit: for formating

RSX Raver wrote:

Tallow wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Rysky wrote:

It's not being an elitist jerk to have your Paladin, or your Cleric/Inquisitor/Warpriest/devout follower of Sarenrae/Pharasma have a problem with Undead being created, and for the player to rankle at being told they have to put up with Undead for metagame reasons despite their characters devoting most of their existence to destroying Undead.

Creating Undead goes against numerous morals, religions, and cultures in-game. Smite and Detect Evil? Not so much.

Yes, but your desire to role play a goody two shoes that doesn't raise unholy mockeries of life from the great beyond doesn't override the equally valid desire of someone else to play someone that raises unholy mockeries of life from the great beyond.

I'd argue that the "equally valid desire to raise dead" is not really equally valid. It may be a "meta-game" validity, but realistically, I cannot see the Pathfinder Society actually allowing Necromancers, and were it my home game, they would not.

It has been stated that there are evil people in the society. They absolutely would allow necromancers (who are not always evil) per canon material published by Paizo. Fact is, the society would rather have a power hungry wizard on their side than working for a rival agency.

Sure, I agree with you. However, they would not want the type of Necromancers that players often play as part of their organization. Employing people that constantly and rampantly raise up skeletons, zombies, and worse, everywhere they go, is not something I'd want associated with my organization that already has a PR issue of graverobbing.

How is, I killed this T-Rex and now I am raising it an issue of grave robbing? Literally I have never seen a player go to the local cemetery and raise an undead horde. That would be pretty evil and an issue. Raising the corpses of the people we kill that were trying to take our lives is not the same thing by any means.

RSX Raver wrote:

Tallow wrote:

Jeff Morse wrote:

I dont think falling is only reason to get atonement. If i played at table with my pally and felt i turned the other way too many times to complete mission and get along, than off to temple he goes. It is an RPG decision.

Exactly. Why does this sort of thing have to always be a GM being a jerk? Why can't it be a player making the correct choice based roleplay and on how a Paladin is written up.

That is taken very out of context. It is not a jerk GM that causes a Paladin to fall for say, killing a helpless enemy. I am saying that causing the Paladin to fall just because they did not try to kill the Necromancer at the table is not okay. If you want to say you feel your paladin need to atone because your role play belief that it is the right thing, and then go get an atonement, then more power to you.

That's my point. I never said anything about a GM forcing a paladin to fall for something like this. But it is my opinion that the way the Paladin Code is written, a player most likely should at least consider getting that atonement if they willingly adventure with a necromancer that is unwilling to mitigate their raising undead. And that is where the griefing comes in. Those I've seen play necromancers know that's how Paladins are written, and do whatever they can to cost the Paladin cash or just grief the player because its a Paladin and its fun to make them squirm, or whatever.

If the player of the paladin decides that his character wants an atonement, it is not griefing. It is not "forcing" them to spend cash. That is that player's choice not being forced by the GM.

If the GM says "I am going to make you get an atonement" and the player has not done anything more then complete a scenario with a necromancer in the party and also does not believe they need one, then that is the GM being a jerk.

If the character hasn't been played at level 4 yet, the level which first has a change for the added archetype, then surely it can be added without retraining? At least that's how I read things.

Correct

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Rysky wrote:

It's not being an elitist jerk to have your Paladin, or your Cleric/Inquisitor/Warpriest/devout follower of Sarenrae/Pharasma have a problem with Undead being created, and for the player to rankle at being told they have to put up with Undead for metagame reasons despite their characters devoting most of their existence to destroying Undead.

Creating Undead goes against numerous morals, religions, and cultures in-game. Smite and Detect Evil? Not so much.

Yes, but your desire to role play a goody two shoes that doesn't raise unholy mockeries of life from the great beyond doesn't override the equally valid desire of someone else to play someone that raises unholy mockeries of life from the great beyond.

I'd argue that the "equally valid desire to raise dead" is not really equally valid. It may be a "meta-game" validity, but realistically, I cannot see the Pathfinder Society actually allowing Necromancers, and were it my home game, they would not.

It has been stated that there are evil people in the society. They absolutely would allow necromancers (who are not always evil) per canon material published by Paizo. Fact is, the society would rather have a power hungry wizard on their side than working for a rival agency.

Jeff Morse wrote:

I dont think falling is only reason to get atonement. If i played at table with my pally and felt i turned the other way too many times to complete mission and get along, than off to temple he goes. It is an RPG decision.

Exactly. Why does this sort of thing have to always be a GM being a jerk? Why can't it be a player making the correct choice based roleplay and on how a Paladin is written up.

That is taken very out of context. It is not a jerk GM that causes a Paladin to fall for say, killing a helpless enemy. I am saying that causing the Paladin to fall just because they did not try to kill the Necromancer at the table is not okay. If you want to say you feel your paladin need to atone because your role play belief that it is the right thing, and then go get an atonement, then more power to you.

RSX Raver wrote:

Rysky wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

A big mistake role players make in pfs , or well, in any cooporative game, is trying to decide what the character WOULD do and then doing that. A better idea that goes double in PFS is to find something that your character MIGHT do and pick something off the list that lets them work with the party.

Lecture the necromancer

Show the necromancer how fleeting the power of undeath is by gleefully cleaving through zombies

Stand back and let the torch and pitchfork mob kill the zombie.

Would I be allowed to do even that? Or even if you do, and they obviously don't listen (cause they wanted to play a Necromancer), what then?

As long as you are not gleefully cleaving through their zombies, then I do not see a problem with those choices.

Your character tries to redeem the necromancer from their dead raising ways, if they do not listen (as is there right in a role play way) then you character realizes they can not be saved and moves on. Make it a fun role playing experience, and not an interpersonal conflict between players.

... that's not how Paladins work though.

Funny thing about Paladins, you will notice a lot of people disagree on how they work. Especially considering that every god has a different Code for their Paladins to follow. In my opinion, that is absolutely how they work, they are still mortals after all and honor bound to their service in the Society.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

A big mistake role players make in pfs , or well, in any cooporative game, is trying to decide what the character WOULD do and then doing that. A better idea that goes double in PFS is to find something that your character MIGHT do and pick something off the list that lets them work with the party.

Lecture the necromancer

Show the necromancer how fleeting the power of undeath is by gleefully cleaving through zombies

Stand back and let the torch and pitchfork mob kill the zombie.

Would I be allowed to do even that? Or even if you do, and they obviously don't listen (cause they wanted to play a Necromancer), what then?

As long as you are not gleefully cleaving through their zombies, then I do not see a problem with those choices.

Your character tries to redeem the necromancer from their dead raising ways, if they do not listen (as is there right in a role play way) then you character realizes they can not be saved and moves on. Make it a fun role playing experience, and not an interpersonal conflict between players.