CptTylorX, I doubt that the OP is talking about a Pathfinder Society game. I'm having trouble picturing an undead horse meeting PFS's stricter-than-RAW standards.
Tatsua, I think that I can see how to square this circle. You're trying to balance being true to your character with having fun with your friends. All you have to do is declare that your character is only zealous about sentients: intelligent undead, and the animation of the remains of sentient creatures. It would still be consistent to RP gently reminding your comrade of how all life should be respected and so on -- not every game session, just when something brought the topic up.
Think of it this way: treating it as the same thing and insisting on destroying the horse outright as a moral imperative -- whether your friends agreed or not -- would result in your character being perceived similar to RL "fur is murder" activists. If that's how you picture him, then sure, go ahead. Otherwise, it would be fair to temper his reaction in light of the difference.
One thing I'd advise is to talk to your DM about the situation.
Explain to him/her that followers of Pharasma are very much against the undead, and having an undead horse in the party is rather unfair to how you prefer to play your character. If your DM is understanding, hopefully he/she will be able to work out a way to maybe replace the undead horse with a living horse so your not having to alter your character to fit someone else who wanted to keep his undead horse.
No, I meant a Pathfinder game, where characters belong to the society.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. The OP didn't say anything about the characters belonging to the Pathfinder Society, and your default alias has a PFS faction, so I thought maybe you just didn't know the difference. Since you're drawing a clear distinction, the next most likely implication is that you're in the game with Tatsua.
Here's the thing: if it isn't a formal PFS game, then there is no one to say that the DM is doing it wrong. Even if the characters all belong to the Pathfinder Society, they have a lot more choices how to interact.
So, Tatsua could RP everything from asking your Venture-Captain to be placed with teammates that were a better fit, to fighting you all off to kill the abomination dead and then complaining to the VC about your disrespect of his religious beliefs. There would be consequences: maybe he would have to roll up a new character to fill the gap in your team after he left, or maybe the VC would order the rest to stomach his murder of that cool mount and get along as team players. It would be up to the DM.
I still think that my original advice was good.
In character, you have to choose your battles. Be unhappy about the situation and do what you can to rectify it, but also consider whether or not an undead horse is worth breaking bonds with powerful allies who have helped defeat actual threatening undead. In character you might not like it, but if the DM put it in I wouldn't worry about arbitrary "lol u wake up with no powers bc of horse".
Unless you really are playing a frothing at the mouth zealot. Then smite the horse in your god's name consequences be damned. A short life and people disliking you are part of a zealot's job description :p
If a Cleric violates their deities edicts, then they become Ex-clerics and lose all their powers.
As I understand it, Pharasma commands the destruction of all undead. So if they party doesn't relent on this issue, their Cleric is going to fall, and they will have a useless party member.
If you can work it out with the DM that your Cleric does not fall, then you begrudgingly look the other way; but this is the DM's call.
Basically, you are praying from a decision from on high that will dictate your next course of action.
Its up to the DM as to whether or not there is any leeway in their gods direction, or if they're immediately discarded for not following their tenets 100% of the time. I personally tend to think of it as the latter, as if a god threw out everyone with minor digressions, they'd find themselves without many followers.
Has anyone suggested asking the GM to retcon the horse to a construct made out of a dead horse?
As the ranger gains levels he can advance the horse by *shudder* swapping out pieces for better parts.
The GM's words: "I'm not going to change this animal. It's cool and it's not hurting anyone."Has anyone suggested asking the GM to retcon the horse to a construct made out of a dead horse?
As the ranger gains levels he can advance the horse by *shudder* swapping out pieces for better parts.
Sounds like the undead horse is more of a symptom than the problem. What is the GM like?
From an in character point of view I'd still kill the horse. Out of character allowing the ranger to have an undead horse strikes me as pretty thoughtless on the part of your GM.
If this is a group that you value playing with then you'd do well to turn the other cheek - either find some rationale for the cleric to accept this or retire the cleric and roll up another character. Or still kill the horse but just be prepared for the out-of-game fallout. Maybe you can develop an Arsenic and Old Lace relationship with the horse where you guys are always secretly trying to kill each other?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM's words: "I'm not going to change this animal. It's cool and it's not hurting anyone."Has anyone suggested asking the GM to retcon the horse to a construct made out of a dead horse?
As the ranger gains levels he can advance the horse by *shudder* swapping out pieces for better parts.
Did you point out that your character would probably be hurt if they lost the favor of their god and became an Ex-cleric?
Your DM sounds like a prick.
This ought to be a short story. Gimme some time and it will be...
Sounds like the best you can hope for (if you want to stick with the group) is to make a new character. Because if the other players and the GM aren't going to relent, then you either have to lose your powers or fight the party.
As the ranger gains levels he can advance the horse by *shudder* swapping out pieces for better parts.
You mean, like this?
|
This actually was pointed out to the GM. He pointed at the atonement spell and said that would take care of it. Meaning my cleric would have to shell out 2500 gold a day to keep getting it cast on him.The GM's words: "I'm not going to change this animal. It's cool and it's not hurting anyone."Has anyone suggested asking the GM to retcon the horse to a construct made out of a dead horse?
As the ranger gains levels he can advance the horse by *shudder* swapping out pieces for better parts.
Did you point out that your character would probably be hurt if they lost the favor of their god and became an Ex-cleric?
Your DM sounds like a prick.
And that's when I would stop playing with him.
And that's when I would stop playing with him.This actually was pointed out to the GM. He pointed at the atonement spell and said that would take care of it. Meaning my cleric would have to shell out 2500 gold a day to keep getting it cast on him.The GM's words: "I'm not going to change this animal. It's cool and it's not hurting anyone."Has anyone suggested asking the GM to retcon the horse to a construct made out of a dead horse?
As the ranger gains levels he can advance the horse by *shudder* swapping out pieces for better parts.
Did you point out that your character would probably be hurt if they lost the favor of their god and became an Ex-cleric?
Your DM sounds like a prick.
3000 actually, since the base spell itself has a 500gp component.
Yeah, tell your DM to bugger off. Imposing a 3k gold fine on the Cleric just so some other player can get a cool mount and then threatening to punish the player when he objects to it?
Time to pack up and move on, this guy is obviously on a powertrip. I've seen his lot before. And your party isn't better if they aren't defending you.
Sounds like he only cares that this is "cool mount" pretty lame if you ask me.
They must be world of warcraft players.
Why not ask the player to keep the "cool mount" more than 30ft away from you so you can channel positive energy because you dont kill the thing.
A mount that is always 30ft away from the party cleric is pretty useless, and the person on the mount is a big target.
You should enact the ultimate revenge upon the table:
Roll up a drow dhampir ranger with a pet panther and silver hair named Vampire Hunter Sephiroth that fights with two scimitars and the power of cheesy protagonism.
On a serious note, I'm sorry you've been caught in the path of "one of those" GMs. If it is of any consolation, I would have welcomed with glee the inevitable standoff between Ranger and Cleric at my table. As I don't really know the people you're playing with or your level of attachment to them, I would feel sorely prepared to advise you on what course of action to take. It's easy to say "do what your character would do," as an outsider, but friends are more important than the game (if it really is going to cause that much of a problem). I would suggest having an out-of-game discussion with the players while the GM is absent to see if some sort of compromise can be reached without the self-serving douchebagel power-tripping over his imagination land's nifty horse carcass.
Back into the realm of the silly: you should just tell the Ranger to spare his trusty steed from all of the inevitable "beating a dead horse" puns that are bound to follow in its wake. It's ego couldn't handle it.
Roll up a drow dhampir ranger with a pet panther and silver hair named Vampire Hunter Sephiroth that fights with two scimitars and the power of cheesy protagonism.
I'd say kill the undead with channel energy and look what happens.
If he punishes you, stop playing with him.
Bring in an Undead Lord Cleric next to dominate that horse and make it jump off a cliff. Or have it "assault" the Temple of Pharasma your previous character hangs out at.
|
I have a number of questions:
He is disallowing you to roleplay your character and follow you god's tenets?
Have you asked him if he would prefer to play your character?
Have you asked if there is any other roleplay that is disallowed in the roleplaying game you are playing?
Would he would prefer you play WOW on your laptop, and occasionally stare blankly and roll dice?
How does he handle Paladin characters?
Have you asked why he threatens to punish players for voicing concerns? Have you asked those not defending you how they will feel when they are disallowed to roleplay their character?
What pc´s do the rest of the group play? If you have an undead horse - maybe they want to play a baddie campaign and you are the only one who doesn´t fit? If not then I would lay waste to his undead horse in the next combat (channel energy). In the meanwhile - no healing or buffs for this guy!
Or go the other route: declare that your character is unable to receive power from Pharasma. Reduce your character to his armor and weapon (and skills) - be as helpful as anything - but don't have any spells, domain abilities or channeling handy. "Sorry guys, I really wish that I could help, a bless and cure moderate would have been great help in that fight, I'll try to get better with my quarterstaff for next level. Hey Bruce! Can you show me again how to 'power' attack?"
I play in the OP's group as a Lizardfolk LE Hellknight,
I've already told him to handle the situation in a way the DM can't stop him since the biased of this has gone far enough. I have also had problems with the DM being thick-headed(that being the reason I have given up going directly to the GM and just handling things in game as I should)and I have told him that if the GM doesn't straighten up and fly right to just use the spell Miracle or Wish to turn the undead horse into a normal horse since the GM can't say that Pharasma wouldnt give him that
My advice is to stop playing with this group.
Not really necessary. The GM isn't a bad guy and isn't always like this he's just hardheaded like most people can be (I include myself in that very easily cause I can also be very thick headed, just never this bad). I don't have many problems with his game and consider everyone I play with friends even despite these stupid problems so leaving isn't really an option for me anyways. Don't know what the OP is gonna do but I have already stepped away from battle over the rules of this game and play the character how I see fit regardless of any "divine" forces that try to prevent me from doing so. I am LE after all xD.
Is your DM making you be an Ex-Cleric of Pharasma? If not you can take this as evidence that Pharasma is not opposed to the Undead horse. If I was the DM and player created an Undead horse and the Cleric of Pharasma allowed it exist I would make him and Ex-cleric.
Casting atonement every day is not a viable option. Not only does it cost too much but you have to actually want forgiveness and change your erring ways. Which would mean you would have to stop hanging out with the undead horse. If your DM doesn't realize this he's not the caliber of player I want running my games.
Personally I don't see how a ranger can justify an undead horse. It's a violation of the natural order. Also ALL the other party members should be on your side in this argument.
Unfortunately you can't channel to heal and destroy the horse as collateral damage. You have to specifically channel positive energy to harm undead.
The only solutions to this problem I see are:
1) Quitting and starting or joining a new group which might not be a option you want to take.
2) Rolling up a new character. As a player or DM I would hate forcing someone to stop playing their character for any reason.
3) Try and find an acceptable replacement for this mount. Either buy him a live horse or a magic item that summons a horse or other mount (ie figurine of wonderous power). I would give up a horse for a golden lion or griffon.
Am I really the only one who thinks that the most graceful solution would be declaring that as far as he knows, Pharasma cares the most about sentience (whether sentient undead or the remains of sentients)? He can still RP gently nagging the ranger about it every few sessions, the same way you might do with a good friend who doesn't treat an animal with as much respect as you think he should. I just don't see why there has to be a teeth-bared, white-knuckled standoff over a *horse*!
The issue isn't the horse. It's the ranger. Actually, it's the ranger's player (and any of his enablers). The entire party knew they had a cleric of Pharasma in the group. Any one of them (DM included) which do not recognize the legitimacy of the situation is a stubborn fool.
Am I really the only one who thinks that the most graceful solution would be declaring that as far as he knows, Pharasma cares the most about sentience (whether sentient undead or the remains of sentients)? He can still RP gently nagging the ranger about it every few sessions, the same way you might do with a good friend who doesn't treat an animal with as much respect as you think he should. I just don't see why there has to be a teeth-bared, white-knuckled standoff over a *horse*!
He could do that, but:
The church despises the undead as abominations to the natural order, and all priests follow this belief without question; creating undead is forbidden, and controlling existing undead frowned upon.
He is still denying the true tenets of his character's faith.
|
|
The GM is being a dick here, but only you can decide if playing the game with him and the others is worth it, otherwise.
You've apparently tried arguing your case, and that's only led to escalating threats (I'll punish your character!) and unreasonable 'solutions' (pay for Atonement each day!).
Either;
1) Leave the game, if you've got other options and there are enough other problems going on to justify it, or
2) Make a new character that doesn't have a problem with a ranger riding a dead horse. Go with a barbarian or wizard or something that is guaranteed to have no class-based behavioral limitations. You might want to avoid making another cleric (not even an evil undead-loving cleric) because that's a bit too much like rewarding bad behavior.
Fixes like 'play an ex-cleric' or 'accidentally channel the undead horse to death' or 'refuse to heal the Ranger' all sound a bit too passive-aggressive, and probably won't be fun for anyone.
Stuff like this is, IMO, best dealt with through out of character actions, like leaving the gaming group or making a new character that will function more smoothly with the new party makeup.
If you are fond of your Pharasman cleric, save it for a later game, when nobody is trotting out the dead horses. Some class (or alignment, or diety) options don't necessarily 'play well with others,' and Pharasmin doctrine is certainly at odds with certain rules mechanics and options.
Sometimes, it can be fun to play a game that challenges a PCs taboos (else, why the hell even play a character with taboos, if they are never relevant?), but this certainly doesn't sound like that sort of situation. Skip the drama, eliminate the problem out of game.
And if the GM or the Ranger player find a way to make your next 'nothing bothers me' character hard to play or un-fun to play, then you might simply have to find a group with 70% less jerks in it.
I will take that all as a "Yes, you're the only one who thinks that way." In which case I vote for Set's advice. We're agreed on one thing: skip the drama. Like Dr. Phil says, would you rather be happy or right? (No really, pick one.)
This is a duplicate thread. Please use this one