|
Curious if anyone out there has tried out an oracle with the Bones mystery yet in PFS, and how things have worked out for you.
I have a concept for a halfling refugee from Geb, and I wanted to try and build the concept around the Wasting curse of the oracle class, and that his attacks, etc. are manifestations of the curse, perhaps spreading a bit of his curse, like a disease. It would make more sense if there was a mystery built around disease or pestilence, but Bones seems to be about as close as it gets (barring anything new in the final release of APG).
What I'm running into is perhaps (in my mind) a legacy sentiment against [evil] spells -- for example, contagion -- and the nature of the Bones mystery in general -- lots of summoning/controlling undead, potentially. Other than the prohibition against evil alignments for PCs, I don't see anything that prevents a character from casting such spells, or taking actions built into their class (such as the Bones ability to summon skeletons or zombies).
I don't think the concept I have is out-and-out evil; perhaps I simply need to stay away from all the undead aspects of the mystery, but I'm curious what others may think...
|
Thinking in black and white the concept still seems evil. Although if you did that to an evil creature would it really be an evil action. When the book comes out i think reading the Oracle section might have some good info about the different aspects of being an Oracle and there might be more info from the Josh about the classes and how they work with pathfinder society.
|
I have a character that is pretty much what you are describing... I am a prophetess of Rovagug (http://chapleau.us/RPG/D20.Pathfinder.Naadhiraal-Zawree.php)
Characters like that can and will stimulate intra-party role play. If you are not willing to do that, I suggest another concept. The Pathfinder society is not a good organization and some darker members of (Golarion) society are members of the (PF) Society. Having a dark concept is fine.
Casting an evil spell in PFS is not an evil act in itself, so you can do this. However, be VERY prepared to have to explain your actions to party members. OR have your abilities be opposed by party members (many times, my summoned undead were included in the burst of a positive channel).
Things you should not do: kill prisoners who surrendered, poison random people,etc. Be willing to work with the DM if he says "I won't allow [XYZ]."
If any of those restrictions do not appeal to you or if you can get offended if a DM tells you he doesn't like/allow XYZ, then play something else. You know your local group better than I do. Such a character WILL create some conflict.
If you're willing to got through it all.. you have a character that is going to be very rewarding to play and lead to memorable situations.
JP
|
|
I wouldn't say the Revelation that summons an undead is evil. If you still want to be able to justify it though, explain that the summoning 'steals' the skeleton from a necromancer, and that using it to battle your enemies(this assumes atleast neutral alighment) is better than letting it kill innocent people. When it's destroyed, you simply 'steal' another.
The spells that let you create undead on the other, are evil, and casting them often(or even once depending on your DM) can cause to to register on a paladin's evil-dar.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Casting an evil spell in PFS is not an evil act in itself, so you can do this.
Depends on whom you ask. James Jacobs, for example, has asserted that, at his table, an Evil-aligned act turns one evil, and that would indeed get your character booted out of organized play.
I don't think that's the way most judges would rule, but Mr. Jacobs is certainly not alone in his judgement. My advice is to check with the GM before play begins, and bring a back-up character (or be willing to run a pre-gen) just in case.
|
|
I think Chris has the right idea. We could get into a big debate about what is evil and what is not, but really it comes down to what the GM at the table decides. If you play amongst friends like JP does, it's fun to push the boundaries and flirt with taboo magicks. If you come to GenCon, you will need to either tone it down or carefully gauge the attitude of the other participants at the table toward the subject. The bottom line is you could approach ten different GMs on this topic and you'd probably get ten different takes.
|
|
I think Chris has the right idea. We could get into a big debate about what is evil and what is not, but really it comes down to what the GM at the table decides. If you play amongst friends like JP does, it's fun to push the boundaries and flirt with taboo magicks. If you come to GenCon, you will need to either tone it down or carefully gauge the attitude of the other participants at the table toward the subject. The bottom line is you could approach ten different GMs on this topic and you'd probably get ten different takes.
Trust me; having been a Triad member in Living Greyhawk, I had to deal with it on a regular basis. And no, I don't want to get into a big debate over what is Evil™ either ;-)
This is all IMHO, of course, but I view it as disease, like poison, is not inherently evil. Oddly enough, it seems most would not have a problem with me injuring someone via inflict light/moderate/etc. wounds, despite the historical connotations of negative energy, simply because it doesn't have the [evil] descriptor.
Things you should not do: kill prisoners who surrendered, poison random people,etc. Be willing to work with the DM if he says "I won't allow [XYZ]."
No, the character is not evil, so he's not all about the random acts of violence, or ruthlessness. Never said it would be an easy concept to work with, but there's so much flavor to work with in the Geb/Nex/Osirion area, that it's hard to pass up the opportunity...
|
|
I don't always play with people I know... quite the opposite ;) But I always bring my characters' uniqueness whenever I play. Of course she isn't as dark when I play with people who are not as familiar... What Chris & Doug have said is true.
On the same thread, the path of bones IS legal in PFS, so constantly refusing a player access to his abilities is against the spirit of the game. If you are to DM player (esp one you are not familiar with), is use caution and warn the player if you will take an action that can take away his character OR constantly negate his abilities.
The path of bones gives Animate Dead @ level 9, a player should be able to use that spell without fearing to lose his character every other table he plays in. If it is to be remove, then replace the spell with something else and keep playing. Otherwise it is legal and should be valid to play. Whether a player wishes to use it or not should be up to the player, not the DM's like or dislike of an ability.
No, the character is not evil, so he's not all about the random acts of violence, or ruthlessness. Never said it would be an easy concept to work with, but there's so much flavor to work with in the Geb/Nex/Osirion area, that it's hard to pass up the opportunity...
Exactly. That was my warning...
JP
|
|
The path of bones gives Animate Dead @ level 9, a player should be able to use that spell without fearing to lose his character every other table he plays in. If it is to be remove, then replace the spell with something else and keep playing. Otherwise it is legal and should be valid to play. Whether a player wishes to use it or not should be up to the player, not the DM's like or dislike of an ability.
I would suggest that if TPTB (aka Josh) are going to look at specific class features, then they need to look at it in the light of how the campaign treats other "questionable" act, such as the Alchemist's use of poison, for example.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
ArVagor, the note in your spoiler is also up for interpretation. At one table, the DM allowed the act to go through, and only then explained to the player that it was a trap assignment and the character was disbarred from the campaign.
At another table, the GM warned the character that following through and "grabbing blindly for all the faction mission points" in this case would have ramifications. The player in question chose not to follow through with the mission, so we'll never know what those ramifications would have been.
Clearly, there are characters whose chose of class or alignment bar them from attempting certain missions. Your example is a poster child for this.
|
|
ArVagor, the note in your spoiler is also up for interpretation. At one table, the DM allowed the act to go through, and only then explained to the player that it was a trap assignment and the character was disbarred from the campaign.
At another table, the GM warned the character that following through and "grabbing blindly for all the faction mission points" in this case would have ramifications. The player in question chose not to follow through with the mission, so we'll never know what those ramifications would have been.
Clearly, there are characters whose chose of class or alignment bar them from attempting certain missions. Your example is a poster child for this.
Getting off topic here, but... I agree on the last point; not every character should be able to complete every mission, hence why some classes are not ideal for certain factions.
*But*, I strongly fault the DM in the first example to decide that it was a "trap assignment". I've read the adventure, and there is nothing in the text to indicate as such (heck, the word "evil" doesn't even appear in the entire text of the adventure as far as I can determine!), nor does there appear to be anything that suggests to the DM that the PC should be removed from the campaign for completing the mission. IMHO, it sounds like someone who had an issue with the faction that needed to complete that mission.
If the campaign is to have factions as they've been setup, then every faction should have equal chance to complete their goals, and in the overall picture, every faction should have the same potential "maximum prestige". To say that the completion of one particular faction's mission awards the faction but at the loss of the PC because the mission is inherently an "evil" mission, strikes me as poor campaign oversight.
|
|
Back on topic... :-)
The oracle automatically gets -- as bonus spells known -- *either* all of the inflict or all of the cure spells when he is at an appropriate level -- his choice, and neither alignment nor god(s) worshiped factors into the choice.
I am considering giving him both cure and inflict spells at each level -- one would be his bonus spell, the other would come out of the choice he gets to make for spells known. Because of the curse that he's under, and because (in his back-story) his oracle curse was imposed by an undead creature (of yet undetermined type), I was thinking that it might be cool that, if he wishes to harm the living, or heal the undead, then he has no problems casting an appropriate inflict spell. On the other hand, if he wishes to heal the living, or harm undead (via cure spells), then it is a 50% chance that he gets the right spell, otherwise he gets the opposite (an inflict of the same level).
Do you think this is too "wrong" for a self-imposed condition in organized play? I also considered he could maybe alleviate it somewhat by having to make a caster level check on each casting -- if he succeeded, then the "right" spell goes off. Maybe DC 20? Keep it that throughout his career and it becomes easier as he levels up...
|
Do you think this is too "wrong" for a self-imposed condition in organized play? I also considered he could maybe alleviate it somewhat by having to make a caster level check on each casting -- if he succeeded, then the "right" spell goes off. Maybe DC 20? Keep it that throughout his career and it becomes easier as he levels up...
Wait, did I read this right? You are thinking your character concept should include 'randomly' casting inflict instead of cure on other PCs (or yourself)?
Nonstarter.
|
|
Wait, did I read this right? You are thinking your character concept should include 'randomly' casting inflict instead of cure on other PCs (or yourself)?
Yep; that's why it's called a curse. I never intended for him to be a healer. You would expect that someone who is diseased could touch just anyone without there being potential repercussions?
And don't blame me, blame the Gebbian government that permits undead abominations to walk freely as citizens, while I was bred and shackled as nothing more than food until I escaped...
|
|
Agreeing with Zizazat here. This would be a fine concept for home play, but you're asking for trouble if you think you could try this on a PC belonging to a stranger at a convention or gameday. Also, healing enemies instead of harming them could anger your fellow players. If you only did this as flavor (harming wounded NPCs out of combat) you could pull it off. Otherwise, bad idea for OP. It comes down to your actions possibly resulting in the death of a PC because you accidentally killed them when they were critically injured, or you healed the bad guy enough that he survived long enough to kill a PC.
|
|
Agreeing with Zizazat here. This would be a fine concept for home play, but you're asking for trouble if you think you could try this on a PC belonging to a stranger at a convention or gameday. Also, healing enemies instead of harming them could anger your fellow players. If you only did this as flavor (harming wounded NPCs out of combat) you could pull it off. Otherwise, bad idea for OP. It comes down to your actions possibly resulting in the death of a PC because you accidentally killed them when they were critically injured, or you healed the bad guy enough that he survived long enough to kill a PC.
FWIW, the players get to know ahead of time about the curse, and that he's not a healer, but... <SIGH>... Back to lowest common denominator...
|
|
Agreeing with Zizazat here. This would be a fine concept for home play, but you're asking for trouble if you think you could try this on a PC belonging to a stranger at a convention or gameday. Also, healing enemies instead of harming them could anger your fellow players. If you only did this as flavor (harming wounded NPCs out of combat) you could pull it off. Otherwise, bad idea for OP. It comes down to your actions possibly resulting in the death of a PC because you accidentally killed them when they were critically injured, or you healed the bad guy enough that he survived long enough to kill a PC.FWIW, the players get to know ahead of time about the curse, and that he's not a healer, but... <SIGH>... Back to lowest common denominator...
If a player gives you informed consent, e.g. you explain your character concept to them and tell them there's a 50% chance you will injure them with your spells and they understand the consequences if they call upon you, then go ahead and try. Your party can always buy you scrolls of cure light wounds so there won't be any "mistakes". I just think if your party needs a healer and you end up making someone worse, which leads to a loss of XP, PA or GP, players will say "Yes, he's got a neat concept there--I'll just play at a different table next time." Like I said, you don't need to give up on the concept--you just need to find the right players to share it with.
|
|
[...] I just think if your party needs a healer and you end up making someone worse, which leads to a loss of XP, PA or GP, players will say "Yes, he's got a neat concept there--I'll just play at a different table next time." Like I said, you don't need to give up on the concept--you just need to find the right players to share it with.
Hence why I would never say he's a healer -- he's not, he just happens to be able to cast healing spells (that don't work very well)
It was a problem I saw surface all the time in Living Greyhawk, Living Arcanis, and the Eberron pseudo-living campaign. Essentially, if the party knows you're a divine caster, then they automatically foist the role of "healer" on you, even if that has nothing to do with the character or its concept...
|
|
[...] I just think if your party needs a healer and you end up making someone worse, which leads to a loss of XP, PA or GP, players will say "Yes, he's got a neat concept there--I'll just play at a different table next time." Like I said, you don't need to give up on the concept--you just need to find the right players to share it with.Hence why I would never say he's a healer -- he's not, he just happens to be able to cast healing spells (that don't work very well)
It was a problem I saw surface all the time in Living Greyhawk, Living Arcanis, and the Eberron pseudo-living campaign. Essentially, if the party knows you're a divine caster, then they automatically foist the role of "healer" on you, even if that has nothing to do with the character or its concept...
I agree that in most of the OP campaigns, divine casters like clerics have been pigeon-holed into the medic role. This was also because many players didn't develop a concept for their cleric and fell into that default role. After consideration of what you pointed out, I think you could try the concept out. As long as you make it clear what the character is about, I supposed no one will have any false expectations. They could try to render the concept moot by placing a wand of cure light wounds in your hand. Would you use it to heal if they asked you, or insist on only using your spells? I also worry about those players who don't pay attention at the table when other players are talking, and they don't get the message. But I didn't realize who I was talking to until this morning. That did play a part in changing my opinion.
|
|
But I didn't realize who I was talking to until this morning. That did play a part in changing my opinion.
I'm not sure that any PC, informed consent or not, might not turn around and claim PVP after the fact if things went the wrong way. I'd think that a PC casting inflict on another PC (while not under NPC control for some reason) falls pretty black/white into PVP. Seems potentially very disruptive at the expense of the fun of others. Of course, I have no idea "who I was talking to" so even if his "heart is in the right place" it feels to me like that place is right up on the line. It is an interesting concept for sure, and I would love to see it play out in my home game. Watching the other PCs grimace in anticipation for the 50/50 die roll would be priceless. *plink, plink*
|
|
But I didn't realize who I was talking to until this morning. That did play a part in changing my opinion.I'm not sure that any PC, informed consent or not, might not turn around and claim PVP after the fact if things went the wrong way. I'd think that a PC casting inflict on another PC (while not under NPC control for some reason) falls pretty black/white into PVP. Seems potentially very disruptive at the expense of the fun of others. Of course, I have no idea "who I was talking to" so even if his "heart is in the right place" it feels to me like that place is right up on the line. It is an interesting concept for sure, and I would love to see it play out in my home game. Watching the other PCs grimace in anticipation for the 50/50 die roll would be priceless. *plink, plink*
I've given permission to other players to drop a fireball or a glitterdust on my PC if it would serve to get more bad guys. I don't see accepting the risk of an inflict spell to be any worse. There is a difference between that and two PCs squaring off to settle a dispute. The most important thing is to have the player's permission before rolling any dice. When he initially posted about the cure/inflict concept I imagined the worst case scenario where a PC who was bleeding out was accidentally finished off. Having consent doesn't diminish the risk, but it does shift the accountability.
As far as who ArVagor is, he's a player familiar to me whom I have respect for. I am not without my biases, but having played with him before I feel he's capable of doing this in an OP campaign without causing the table to revolt. I think we all have had players at our tables whose idea of role-play has caused contraversy and heartburn. I can't help think about the worst-case scenario whenever I read a post here.
|
|
I've given permission to other players to drop a fireball or a glitterdust on my PC if it would serve to get more bad guys. I don't see accepting the risk of an inflict spell to be any worse.
Agreed. I suppose it furthers the character concept as well as said PCs might be more adverse to ask for healing in the future :)
I can't help think about the worst-case scenario whenever I read a post here.
Amen :)
On the other hand, if he wishes to heal the living, or harm undead (via cure spells), then it is a 50% chance that he gets the right spell, otherwise he gets the opposite (an inflict of the same level).
Do you think this is too "wrong" for a self-imposed condition in organized play? I also considered he could maybe alleviate it somewhat by having to make a caster level check on each casting -- if he succeeded, then the "right" spell goes off. Maybe DC 20? Keep it that throughout his career and it becomes easier as he levels up...
I have to admit -- if I were at the same table as you, and you cast Harm on an undead enemy instead of Heal, I'd be rather disgusted. Healing an enemy while the rest of the party is fighting it is not cool. Saying "I couldn't help it, my character made me do it" is not an excuse, IMO.
But if you just said to the rest of the party "I'm not a healer, so don't ask me to heal you", I'd be perfectly fine with that.
|
I think collateral damage really depends on the circumstances. I'm playing a LG Andoran wizard and play it more on the do good side. But I did have occasions where just from the outcome you could accuse me of PvP.
The probably most memorable (and with the worst outcome) was a strategic placed fireball from a scroll when my character was still third level.
Theodum had to destroy certain papers that would prevent Taldor being undermined. Having a bad conscience with this mission we encountered the BBE. It seemed a pretty hard fight. So instead of keeping the scroll until fifth level as planned he cast the spell to go off behind the BBE to avoid any friends to be hit and hoping in case the papers would go off in flame that it would be a bad 'accident'.
Neither my character nor myself did ever contemplate that together with the papers I wanted to destroy also the Taldor mission would go off in flames as well.
As a wizard collateral damage sometimes happens. I try my best to avoid it - but the same player whom mission I destroyed was on the receiving end again in both following games. He knows that the first time it was bad dice roll for his saving throw coupled with two successful ones from the GM that made a bad situation worse.
The second time I'm still sure my aim was perfect - maybe casting on the level of accidents and mishap was a give-away that I didn't follow.
For the bones mystery it looks like you are playing even more with fate. And a heal that backfires is even more personal as an area effect gets misplaced. So it is something you have to be very careful how to play it. And not many players would be able to do it. But I wouldn't say it's impossible.
I agree with the above - hiding behind an excuse my character build made me do it will outrage most players. At the same time playing it carefully with only the occasional mishap and understanding players could be an enriching role-play experience at the table.
I would need to know the player to make a decision. Seems I'm already doing enough damage with a simple wizard and probably wouldn't qualify for such a demanding role
Thod
|
|
As far as who ArVagor is, he's a player familiar to me whom I have respect for. I am not without my biases, but having played with him before I feel he's capable of doing this in an OP campaign without causing the table to revolt. I think we all have had players at our tables whose idea of role-play has caused contraversy and heartburn. I can't help think about the worst-case scenario whenever I read a post here.
Thanks for the props, Doug Doug, it is much appreciated :-) (For those who don't know me, I used to be a Triad member for the Veluna region of the Living Greyhawk campaign, and I know I've also judged tables where Doug Doug was a player as well, so the fact that he is already a 5-star GM for Pathfinder is not surprising from what I remember of my experiences).
As far as the other stuff is concerned... Sure, you can give him a wand of cure light wounds, and I'm pretty sure it'll work as intended ;-) My goal is not to sow discord and chaos (I'm sure my first PFS character, a gnome barbarian, will be doing plenty of that -- after all, you have to do something to keep the Bleaching at bay), but to try and come up with interesting concepts for my characters.
I've only been playing PFS since Origins, so I can't say how many PCs are running around with a background/origin story from Geb, and/or specifically as escaped slaves from the same, but it seems to me that slaves bred for the purpose of being thralls and/or foodstuffs for the Gebbite nobles would have some magical precautions imposed upon them to prevent too much insurgency and unrest. That those precautions would twist and manifest in the form of his curse(s) as he escaped north through the Mana Wastes seemed like a spin no one else would have. I thought it also would be a good way to illustrate how destructive and corrupt the influence of Geb can be (IMHO), even so far from its actual borders. The actual nature of the (non-Oracle) curse may change slightly -- after all, he's still a concept, and has yet to see play -- but it needs to remain in the realm of a "Do no harm to your undead masters" -type of thing...