| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually there isn't anything in the Paladin Code that stops it from working with undead, just evil things. So if its, say, a good vampire that drinks cow blood ala Supernatural or a white necromancer, you're in the clear. Of course you'll have to define your moral code and such...
As for a cleric of Pharasma, it's pretty clear cut. I never thought I'd see the day where the paladin would be less restrictive over this than another class :) It's a little refreshing.
My solution, AD, because I can speak for myself, is that in these kinds of situations, you have to step back and look at the people involved. Forget the in-game stuff, look at the other players and the DM. Talk about the problem out of game.Table manners first; pretend game strife/crap/drama second.
loaba, this clarification of your position is one I can agree with. However, your previous post clearly said that the OP should just live with the undead mount.
That is not the same thing as "talk about the problem out of game" which is exactly what I suggested myself.
I'll agree with the idea that you need to deal with the problem in a mature, reasonable manner at the table first, then work out the role playing implications. But I do not accept that the automatic solution here is for the OP to allow undead in the party.
If the GM didn't want him to play a Cleric of Pharasma, it needed to be addressed at creation. Once the game is rolling, if you let the player concept come in and didn't tell them that the concept was going to be a problem, you can't force the player not to play what they asked to play.
You deal with it in-game. As the DM, you enforce the negative attitude people will have in regards to the mount and the party as well. I promise you, if the mount gets in the way of party business, then it will quickly get dropped.
You let this play out. Be adult about it.
So if you, Leprechaun, are playing a paladin and i come into your group and the DM ok's my Ghoul rogue, you are ok with that? Your paladin is just going to be like... "hey, cool"? There are some things that PCs should let slide, but this is not one of them... there are a lot of class combos that wouldn't have a problem with undead, but in this group there is someone who's PC cannot allow undead to live willingly or they will fall (lose all of their ability to do their job)... if that would make me a PITA to play with because you want to do something that will make my character fall so be it.
Who's there first, ghoul or rogue?
I don't do paladins; I like to do a chaotic neutral fighter, so I don't have to get my panties in a wad because somebody wants to be a ghoul rogue.
EDIT plus, Odraude kinda cleared that one up anyway's. Doesn't say I have to have a hissy fit because there's a kleptomaniac with weird dietary compulsions; I just have to kinda walk over to the treeline and take a leak or something and stick my fingers in my ears and go "LALALALALALAIDON'THEARYOU!!!" when he's breaking out the fava beans and a nice chianti to go with the orcs we just wasted.
in this group there is someone who's PC cannot allow undead to live willingly or they will fall (lose all of their ability to do their job)... if that would make me a PITA to play with because you want to do something that will make my character fall so be it.
Its up to the DM, and in this case it obviously seems that grudgingly tolerating a mindless and harmless undead in order to appease people who are busy destroying actual threatening undead will not make you fall. Choose your battles, and see if there's an opportunity to get rid of it later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it a little strange how many people are jumping on the OP accusing him of being the 'real' problem in this situation. From the original post, it seems the group has been together at least for a few adventures. He talks of trying to redeem other undead before attempting to destroy them. This means the other PC's originally accepted his Cleric as part of the group, mindset and everything.
I have no idea if the other players asked the OP to tone down his crusade against the undead before this incident, but if so the OP should have mentioned it. As it is, it seems like the other players made a tacit agreement to adventure with a Cleric who makes it a life mission to destroy the foul undead.
Now along comes an undead mount. The other players, the ranger in particular, should have known this would be a problem with the OP's Cleric. I mean, if you say made a Fighter who was a famous Dragonslayer, whose home town wad destroyed, family killed by dragons, and someone in the party managed to get a Dragon companion, the same sort of issues would arise.
It's at character creation that the other players should voice concerns, such as "I don't know if a Cleric of Pharasma will mesh with the group. We don't really want any zealots."
This is similar to when one player decides to play a Paladin. Sometimes, the choice has to be cleared by everyone. Unless the rest of the party are comfortable with some inter-party conflict, evil PC's become a bad choice with a Paladin PC.
I don't know that this situation is anyone's 'fault', but I think it is as much a responsibility of the Ranger to help find a compromise as it is the OP or the GM.
So if you, Leprechaun, are playing a paladin and i come into your group and the DM ok's my Ghoul rogue, you are ok with that? Your paladin is just going to be like... "hey, cool"? There are some things that PCs should let slide, but this is not one of them... there are a lot of class combos that wouldn't have a problem with undead, but in this group there is someone who's PC cannot allow undead to live willingly or they will fall (lose all of their ability to do their job)... if that would make me a PITA to play with because you want to do something that will make my character fall so be it.Who's there first, ghoul or rogue?
I don't do paladins; I like to do a chaotic neutral fighter, so I don't have to get my panties in a wad because somebody wants to be a ghoul rogue.
EDIT plus, Odraude kinda cleared that one up anyway's. Doesn't say I have to have a hissy fit because there's a kleptomaniac with weird dietary compulsions; I just have to kinda walk over to the treeline and take a leak or something and stick my fingers in my ears and go "LALALALALALAIDON'THEARYOU!!!" when he's breaking out the fava beans and a nice chianti to go with the orcs we just wasted.
Well... I didn't say that lol.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't force players to do anything, especially if you're another player. If someone insists on something long enough that no one else wants to do both in and out of character and they're already angry with you both in and out, you just might be digging your cleric a shallow grave in the wilderness.
There is a magic word, and that word is "no". If "No" doesn't work, "goodbye" usually does the trick.
This guy got his character approved by the GM, and his concept is a very generic, basic concept. A Cleric of one of the main Gods in the setting.
The person at the table who wants an undead mount and is inflexible about it is the one who is trying to have something unusual for the setting, not the OP. The GM should not have allowed it if they were also going to allow the player to be a cleric.
We had a player once who wanted to play a Good Necromancer, with the backstory being that he believe the Undead could be helpful to people, and were just misunderstood. He went through elaborate planning to keep the fact that his "friends" were undead from the rest of the party.
It was a blast to play with him in that group. But he was fully expected to make all the accommodations and adjustments, because he was throwing the wrinkle in.
The OP is all but playing an off the shelf character for the setting. He shouldn't be required to adjust to accommodate someone who wants an undead mount, unless the person with the undead mount was there first.
So if you, Leprechaun, are playing a paladin and i come into your group and the DM ok's my Ghoul rogue, you are ok with that? Your paladin is just going to be like... "hey, cool"? There are some things that PCs should let slide, but this is not one of them... there are a lot of class combos that wouldn't have a problem with undead, but in this group there is someone who's PC cannot allow undead to live willingly or they will fall (lose all of their ability to do their job)... if that would make me a PITA to play with because you want to do something that will make my character fall so be it.
I'm not spanky but heres my answer.
Is your Ghoul evil? If yes then by the game rules I have to kill you or leave. If not and I don't have an Oath against Undead the sure we can be best buddies as long as you keep your eating of corpses far enough away that I can eat my dinner without watching it.
Oh; and Odraude; sorry for misinterpreting your statement.
And thank you for allowing me to, like, give people a lesson in having manners. o_0
I find it a little strange how many people are jumping on the OP accusing him of being the 'real' problem in this situation. From the original post, it seems the group has been together at least for a few adventures. He talks of trying to redeem other undead before attempting to destroy them. This means the other PC's originally accepted his Cleric as part of the group, mindset and everything.
I have no idea if the other players asked the OP to tone down his crusade against the undead before this incident, but if so the OP should have mentioned it. As it is, it seems like the other players made a tacit agreement to adventure with a Cleric who makes it a life mission to destroy the foul undead.
Now along comes an undead mount. The other players, the ranger in particular, should have known this would be a problem with the OP's Cleric. I mean, if you say made a Fighter who was a famous Dragonslayer, whose home town wad destroyed, family killed by dragons, and someone in the party managed to get a Dragon companion, the same sort of issues would arise.
It's at character creation that the other players should voice concerns, such as "I don't know if a Cleric of Pharasma will mesh with the group. We don't really want any zealots."
This is similar to when one player decides to play a Paladin. Sometimes, the choice has to be cleared by everyone. Unless the rest of the party are comfortable with some inter-party conflict, evil PC's become a bad choice with a Paladin PC.
I don't know that this situation is anyone's 'fault', but I think it is as much a responsibility of the Ranger to help find a compromise as it is the OP or the GM.
I agree with this and I don't believe we should be crucifying the OP. When I played a necromancer in a game with a paladin, I made sure to clear it with him and the GM. We were pretty okay with it, as I wasn't going to go graverobbing towns or anything.
Amazing what communication can do.
|
|
If the GM didn't want him to play a Cleric of Pharasma, it needed to be addressed at creation. Once the game is rolling, if you let the player concept come in and didn't tell them that the concept was going to be a problem, you can't force the player not to play what they asked to play.You deal with it in-game. As the DM, you enforce the negative attitude people will have in regards to the mount and the party as well. I promise you, if the mount gets in the way of party business, then it will quickly get dropped.
You let this play out. Be adult about it.
It is in the way of party business. This is it playing out. The undead has been discovered by a cleric of Pharasma, who everyone knows are dedicated to destroying undead.
The person who created the mount is a problem, and the GM who allowed it is the bigger problem.
Oh; sorry for misinterpreting your statement.
And thank you for allowing me to, like, give people a lesson in having manners. o_0
I suppose eating the dead is natural. Vultures do it. Circle of life and all that jazz.
...I'd really be the worst Paladin :D
|
|
So if you, Leprechaun, are playing a paladin and i come into your group and the DM ok's my Ghoul rogue, you are ok with that? Your paladin is just going to be like... "hey, cool"? There are some things that PCs should let slide, but this is not one of them... there are a lot of class combos that wouldn't have a problem with undead, but in this group there is someone who's PC cannot allow undead to live willingly or they will fall (lose all of their ability to do their job)... if that would make me a PITA to play with because you want to do something that will make my character fall so be it.I'm not spanky but heres my answer.
Is your Ghoul evil? If yes then by the game rules I have to kill you or leave. If not and I don't have an Oath against Undead the sure we can be best buddies as long as you keep your eating of corpses far enough away that I can eat my dinner without watching it.
The problem being that Clerics of Pharasma do have oaths against undead.
It is pretty much what they do.
Waste not, want not. They're orcs anyway. It's "bush meat."
That easy.
I was responding to the supposed Paladin/Ghoul question.
As to the cleric question thats why knowing the level is important.
Also on that note do you have selective channel?
If the GM didn't want him to play a Cleric of Pharasma, it needed to be addressed at creation. Once the game is rolling, if you let the player concept come in and didn't tell them that the concept was going to be a problem, you can't force the player not to play what they asked to play.You deal with it in-game. As the DM, you enforce the negative attitude people will have in regards to the mount and the party as well. I promise you, if the mount gets in the way of party business, then it will quickly get dropped.
You let this play out. Be adult about it.
It is in the way of party business. This is it playing out. The undead has been discovered by a cleric of Pharasma, who everyone knows are dedicated to destroying undead.
The person who created the mount is a problem, and the GM who allowed it is the bigger problem.
I'd like to know how the mount was introduced. Did the OP see it coming that the Ranger would get it as a companion, or did the GM and Ranger come to an agreement out of game and the Cleric showed up one session to find a big pile of party conflict waiting for him?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or if you really really want to show your belly, just ask them straight out: "Do you want me to kill the horse or roll a new character?"I kinda handed the DM my character sheet and told him that if he was going to kill me for killing this horse that he should just rip the sheet in half....I'm not entirely proud of that action, but my character was about to get attacked by 2 PCs.
Rip in half, or light on fire? More visceral, and as an added bonus, FIRE!
It sounds to me like your group sort of sucks, TBH. In the end, they have decided that a PCs pet is more important than their healer and friend, and are willing to literally kill their friend because he will not stand for the pet.
I agree with you. Killing another PC over something stupid like that makes them seem like a!*%~&*s. There's nothing wrong with some in party conflict, but there are better ways to punish actions you don't like with in-character action other than murder, and they can tend to actually make the game interesting for everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or if you really really want to show your belly, just ask them straight out: "Do you want me to kill the horse or roll a new character?"I kinda handed the DM my character sheet and told him that if he was going to kill me for killing this horse that he should just rip the sheet in half....I'm not entirely proud of that action, but my character was about to get attacked by 2 PCs.
This is a really good indication that "table manners" were beginning to wane, AD.
OP - y'all have to step back and talk about this. It's a game and it's not fun right now. Right and wrong is irrelevant.
Table manners come first, RP issues come second. Worry more about your relations with real people, and less about pretend problems in a pretend world.
This.
Problems like this are ultimately OOC issues that need to be resolved out of game. One player kills undead, another gets an undead mount, I presume with GM permission so the GM needs to smooth things over. You should get together with the player with the undead horse and the GM and talk things through to try to find a solution that will make everybody happy. The first thing that needs to be cleared up is making sure the GM doesn't intend to punish you with your god for failing to destroy the mount, if he has any such plan then he is clearly in the wrong for letting the mount come into the party when he knew it would cause strife.
Once that is resolved, the three of you can come up with a method to role play this out. Maybe the undead mount character and the cleric can constantly argue over the mount or have theological or philosophical debates about the undead, maybe you can threaten to leave the party but some important mission forces you to stay, something like that. The game is ultimately about having fun, so come up with an OOC solution that maximizes fun.
Tatsua...
Wow... just wow...
Good luck man. I have a feeling this horse is not going to end up being the most difficult intra-party or GM vs player issue you end up dealing with.
|
|
We had just been trapped on a Lich's island filled with undead creatures. After wiping out all the undead, we're ferry'd back to the mainland where my character notices the Ranger had gotten a new mount. One Knowledge (religion) roll later I know it's an undead horse. I approach and re-explain my Cleric duties and offered to by her a suitable mount in recompense. That didn't work, so I prayed to Pharasma to see if she would do something and nothing did. I then go to the Church for help, and they supply me with two crusaders, I go back to find only the rogue friend of the Ranger (another PC, one who my cleric has healed and traveled with for a long while) and ask where they've taken the horse. After some conversation, I learn that the horse is out of the city, but still part of the party. The crusaders don't feel like going after it anymore so I go after it alone. Confronting the Ranger and a PC sorcerer, I try diplomacy again, and they say that if I try to harm the horse they will kill me. I pray to Pharasma once more to no avail and then cast Undeath to Death. The horse makes the save and the sorcerer traps me in a prison of ice. I am eventually freed and being taken away when I convince my transport to turn around. Getting back to the horse I find it guarded by two cannon golems set by the sorcerer. After some chase they teleport me away.
Yup. Fail GM for allowing an undead animal companion.
You need to find a new GM or a new group at this point.
Sounds like both the party and the GM already chose for you. The horse stays, the character is trash.
Yeah; go do something fun like walking on thumbtacks or whatever.
Nobody needs that crap.
F$!@em.
|
|
Well, full-on interparty combat. Exciting.
I had a great idea for a two-party campaign (one good and one evil) both pursuing the same list of artifacts over a long campaign and then at the end having the two parties face off.
It would alternate weeks, with the same people playing both groups, including in the final winner take all battle.
Couldn't get my group to buy in, but I think it could be great.
Don't do any more IC stuff until you talk about this out of character. See if this can be resolved somehow without ruining anybody's fun.
Is there like other stuff going on? Beside's an undead horse? Cause, who really gives a crap about an undead horse?
I think it's the preverbial canary in the coal mine.
Will the GM refrain from punishing you for letting the horse (un)live? If so, then just leave it alone and move on. If not, then the GM is the main problem.
Yeah; it could be like a "neutrally" undead thing, that Pharasma doesn't really worry about; just kinda frowns upon......
Will the GM refrain from punishing you for letting the horse (un)live? If so, then just leave it alone and move on. If not, then the GM is the main problem.
It sounded less like the GM doing the punishing as opposed to two players who wanted the horse.
Will the GM refrain from punishing you for letting the horse (un)live? If so, then just leave it alone and move on. If not, then the GM is the main problem.It sounded less like the GM doing the punishing as opposed to two players who wanted the horse.
If the GM doesn't punish the cleric player for not killing the horse, then the OP should figure out some justification for leaving the horse alone, as it is obviously important to the rest of the party. Or, as I have already said, discuss things out of game.
Honestly, how much will it ruin the cleric player's fun to quest with this undead horse for a while?
|
|
Couldn't get my group to buy in, but I think it could be great.I would play the hell out of that campaign.
I know, right? It was the time commitment involved in basically taking up all the weekly games for awhile,(we had a couple of GMs who wanted to run things which were already alternating) plus the fact that is was on the end of a long AP, so they would have to make a high level evil group. It fell apart when some APs got going, kids came along...etc.
I was going to do it as the spin off at the end of CoTCT.
Kazavon's bones, one was going to be the original party that went through, the other was going to be a party made up of Brotherhood of Bones characters. I created quests for each of the 7 artifacts and was going to let the groups alternate which one they went after until they both ended up going after whatever the 7th one was and had to face off for it.
Maybe one day...
|
|
Agree with TOZ. May I steal that idea please?Well, full-on interparty combat. Exciting.I had a great idea for a two-party campaign (one good and one evil) both pursuing the same list of artifacts over a long campaign and then at the end having the two parties face off.
It would alternate weeks, with the same people playing both groups, including in the final winner take all battle.
Couldn't get my group to buy in, but I think it could be great.
Please do. Let me know how it goes.
Yeah; it could be like a "neutrally" undead thing, that Pharasma doesn't really worry about; just kinda frowns upon......Have you read up on Pharasma?
Yeah; but you can modify stuff, to fit your campaign too. Like "I got a guy who's a cleric of Pharasma.....yadda yadda........undead horse yadda yadda......why don't we just not worry about the whole thing because it's boring and tedious, and not really that entertaining, which is the point of the game?"
Yeah; but you can modify stuff, to fit your campaign too. Like "I got a guy who's a cleric of Pharasma.....yadda yadda........undead horse yadda yadda......why don't we just not worry about the whole thing because it's boring and tedious, and not really that entertaining, which is the point of the game?"Yeah; it could be like a "neutrally" undead thing, that Pharasma doesn't really worry about; just kinda frowns upon......Have you read up on Pharasma?
Maybe it's an important facet of the OP's character?
Same way, I ignore the fact that.....the Death Star could have just blown up Yavin, which would have jacked that rebel base all to hell. But,....meh. Doesn't bother me.
Maybe it's an important facet of the OP's character?Yeah; but you can modify stuff, to fit your campaign too. Like "I got a guy who's a cleric of Pharasma.....yadda yadda........undead horse yadda yadda......why don't we just not worry about the whole thing because it's boring and tedious, and not really that entertaining, which is the point of the game?"Yeah; it could be like a "neutrally" undead thing, that Pharasma doesn't really worry about; just kinda frowns upon......Have you read up on Pharasma?
What, the undead horse, or the guy who wants to kill the undead horse's urge/need/zeal to kill the undead horse? Which one is the important facet again?