Let me just clarify and give more information on some stuff.
No1. The assassin wanted to play a character where he would kill a shop owner in his sleep if he gave him a bad deal.
No2. This was quite a while ago back when we first started playing pen and paper games. First campaign is a lot different to now.Whoa, wait up a second. Now it makes sense. Honestly, I'd probably let my friends play whatever they wanted to as well if they killed people for money. ;)
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
Haha yeah it's 2am here. Although if he actually is an assassin irl it would make a lot of sense......
This is Warhamer you're talking about.. the poster child for Crapsack Universes. It's a poor item to bring up in comparison because nothing, practically no one is good in Warhammer.
It's not that no one is good, it's that the concept of good and evil no longer applies in Warhammer.
They have got to a point where primitive forms of morality are no longer viable.
When survival is your goal, good and evil become inconvenient baggage.
When the universe has been a battlefield for 40000 years, good and evil were the first casualties.
|
Things to consider here.
If you're running Golarion straight out.. raising undead is the use of evil magic, even if the character itself is not evil.
The necromancer is the addition to the party so the onus is on the entering character to fit in.
If it comes down to one or the other, which is the group going to miss more? Mr I Want to Walk Downtown With My Shambling Zombies, or the guy who keeps you healed between fights?
I'd miss the guy walking down the street with zombies...no one effs with zombies...
If it comes down to one or the other, which is the group going to miss more? Mr I Want to Walk Downtown With My Shambling Zombies, or the guy who keeps you healed between fights?
This made my night!
Don't ignore the Oracle option someone put a few posts back.
It's an entirely rule legal, no house-rule required way of doing non-evil necromancy
Back to the OP question of a cleric of Cayden Cailen and a neutral-aligned necromancer in the same party...
1) Unless you're making some major changes to the Pathfinder campaign world, the creation of undead is by definition an evil act. Undead are always evil in the official PF campaign world. Just about everyone in civil society, and especially the cleric of a good god, finds the creation of undead to be an abomination. This is especially true in the chaotic-leaning society of Varisia: creating undead is taking away the rights and freedom of a creature to have a peaceful death!
Wizards and clerics who develop a reputation as creators of undead minions tend to be under constant threat of local authorities, adventurers, and angry mobs.
2) That's not to say you can't have a non-evil necromancer. Most spells of the necromancy school don't create undead, and many are particularly useful as weapons against undead.
3) Controlling undead that were created by someone or something else is also not necessarily evil, especially if that control leads to the ultimate destruction of that undead creature.
I once played a good-aligned necromancer that hated the undead. He became a necromancer specifically because he wanted to learn all that he could about them so that he could more effectively destroy them.
|
Point being, you made a blanket ruling about the other player's assassin idea rather than figure out a way to make one work. Now you're trying to shoehorn a different definitively evil character concept into not being evil.
Part of your job as GM is to be consistent. Playing favorites among your players will not turn out well.
The needs of a game change from campaign to campaign and a ruling in one campaign cannot be expected to hold in a new campaign. When I am running a heroic campaign then I require good alignments. In my current campaign I allow LN and N but not CN (because that is just CE lite).
In my current campaign I have a player who is a wizard necromancer. I have a couple paladins and other good players who voiced opposition to undead. So I told the player to stick to the necromancy spells that do not create undead to avoid trouble. He still has a lot of choices spell wise and if they run into undead he can use the spells that let him take control.
I kinda like the ancestral dead idea and might steal it as a way to let him use undead without problems from the other players. I have an idea that perhaps there is a school of magic in the Land of the Linnorm Kings that allows warriors who did not die in battle to come back and earn their place in the afterlife.
I'd miss the guy walking down the street with zombies...no one effs with zombies...
No one except the growing mob of villagers with torches and pitchforks behind him.
This situation REALLY bugs me to no end.
We had a similar situation in our group. So the players of the Necro and the cleric kept arguing about this and the cleric spent more time trying to thwart the Necro's attempt to use undead in the game than to help the rest of the group. The cleric's view on this was : You should of taken something else.
At which point I turned around and gave everyone at the table a piece of my mind.
1- the cleric's player played a CN jerk in the previous campaign and nobody gave this a second thought. Now it's someone else's turn to play something out of the ordinary. Get over it, and move on!
2- the players don't get to decide what other players should play.
3- the players presented their intentions to the DM before hand and the DM accepted, without restriction, warning or reserve.
4- the DM has the responsibility to make sure the game runs smoothly. If he allows the Necro, then it is his job to tell the cleric's player to stop interfering. Some people use role-playing as an excuse for bad behavior at the gaming table. It came to a pointin our group where no one wanted to play a paladin anymore because everybody else would go out of their way to give him a hard time. A paladin does not have to preach incessantly, or buly other players because of his class. That is b*****t! The DM should have disalowed the necro or intervene the first time the argument started.
5- If the DM makes a decision to accept a character concept, that doesn't mean said character has to disrupt the game for everybody else.
(gets down from the soapbox)
Don't ignore the Oracle option someone put a few posts back.
It's an entirely rule legal, no house-rule required way of doing non-evil necromancy
Editor's Note:
Spirit Vessels' ability to create non-evil undead was an oversight, and this behavior is not intended. Gamemasters are encouraged to treat undead created with this ability as having evil alignment.This kind of kills it for me personally.
If I allow it will be the whole summon dead heroes idea.
My main concern now is balance.
Worst comes to worst I tell him the furthest that he can go is controlling the undead (would that even be useful in RotRL I've not read it all yet).
The undead would be evil, but the SPELL wouldn't be evil.
So the creation of the undead would not be an evil act.
I kinda like the ancestral dead idea and might steal it as a way to let him use undead without problems from the other players. I have an idea that perhaps there is a school of magic in the Land of the Linnorm Kings that allows warriors who did not die in battle to come back and earn their place in the afterlife.
I mentioned something similar regarding the Linnorm Kings about a page back. I think it could work (or even Shoanti ancestor worship).
Haha yeah it's 2am here. Although if he actually is an assassin irl it would make a lot of sense......
I'm not sure what you're implying but I hope for your sake you guys get along. :) Also, 2am eh? So, Australia? (Just curious, I noticed you're a fairly new poster, as am I, and I find gamer demographics interesting).
The DM should have disalowed the necro or intervene the first time the argument started.
If you weren't meaning your game by this.
I am the DMAnd the Campaign doesn't start for at least another week.
I kinda like the ancestral dead idea and might steal it as a way to let him use undead without problems from the other players. I have an idea that perhaps there is a school of magic in the Land of the Linnorm Kings that allows warriors who did not die in battle to come back and earn their place in the afterlife.I mentioned something similar regarding the Linnorm Kings about a page back. I think it could work (or even Shoanti ancestor worship).
I'm not sure what you're implying but I hope for your sake you guys get along. :) Also, 2am eh? So, Australia? (Just curious, I noticed you're a fairly new poster, as am I, and I find gamer demographics interesting).
Haha yeah it's 2am here. Although if he actually is an assassin irl it would make a lot of sense......
Yeah born in Scotland, moved to Australia when I was 10. And yeah I'm very new. I've mostly found people very helpful, but already I can tell that there's a very large variation in how seriously people take playing.
The DM should have disalowed the necro or intervene the first time the argument started.If you weren't meaning your game by this.
I am the DM
And the Campaign doesn't start for at least another week.
You are correct. I am talking about my experience.
Don't want to sound preachy, but...
In your case, nip this in the bud. Make a decision, one way or the other, give your ruling and stick by it. I think that no-one needs this kind of hassle in-game.
Save that in Golarion... the raising undead is evil rule still trumps that. There's no getting out of that.Don't ignore the Oracle option someone put a few posts back.
It's an entirely rule legal, no house-rule required way of doing non-evil necromancy
But that specific class option is a Golarion class who follows a Golarion god.
It was built with Golarion in mind, including the removal of evil from the spell descriptor.
So it's a Golarion appropriate non-evil necro class.
The DM should have disalowed the necro or intervene the first time the argument started.If you weren't meaning your game by this.
I am the DM
And the Campaign doesn't start for at least another week.You are correct. I am talking about my experience.
Don't want to sound preachy, but...
In your case, nip this in the bud. Make a decision, one way or the other, give your ruling and stick by it. I think that no-one needs this kind of hassle in-game.
Yeah once I make a ruling I'm not going back on it so I really want to know I'm making the right decision before I make it.
F**k getting a decent rest for uni tomorrow. Engineering can wait, this needs sorted now. It's all about priority you see.
Oh also this might be very important the party is 5 players (again with the balance I know) but that extra party memeber might tip the scales in regards to if it would be acceptable to have minion running (or shuffling)around.
Save that in Golarion... the raising undead is evil rule still trumps that. There's no getting out of that.Don't ignore the Oracle option someone put a few posts back.
It's an entirely rule legal, no house-rule required way of doing non-evil necromancy
But that specific class option is a Golarion class who follows a Golarion god.
It was built with Golarion in mind, including the removal of evil from the spell descriptor.
So it's a Golarion appropriate non-evil necro class.
You're a bit behind the times there Flesh. as this Editor's note illustrates.
Spirit Vessels' ability to create non-evil undead was an oversight, and this behavior is not intended. Gamemasters are encouraged to treat undead created with this ability as having evil alignment.
I know what the reply to this is going to be is but I'm not really sold on the whole evil undead but not evil spell.
Save that in Golarion... the raising undead is evil rule still trumps that. There's no getting out of that.Don't ignore the Oracle option someone put a few posts back.
It's an entirely rule legal, no house-rule required way of doing non-evil necromancy
But that specific class option is a Golarion class who follows a Golarion god.
It was built with Golarion in mind, including the removal of evil from the spell descriptor.
So it's a Golarion appropriate non-evil necro class.
You're a bit behind the times there Flesh. as this Editor's note illustrates.
Spirit Vessels' ability to create non-evil undead was an oversight, and this behavior is not intended. Gamemasters are encouraged to treat undead created with this ability as having evil alignment.
As I said in the previous post, read that sentence again.
It does not change the fact that the evil descriptor is removed, it changes the fact that the undead themselves were neutral.
With those changes, it remain a non-evil spell, the spell just creates undead and all undead are evil.
The risen corpses are evil, the act to create them ceases being evil when you are a Juju Oracle with that ability.
So, again, the spell still loses the evil descriptor, it just doesn't create neutral undead.
Yeah born in Scotland, moved to Australia when I was 10. And yeah I'm very new. I've mostly found people very helpful, but already I can tell that there's a very large variation in how seriously people take playing.Haha yeah it's 2am here. Although if he actually is an assassin irl it would make a lot of sense......I'm not sure what you're implying but I hope for your sake you guys get along. :) Also, 2am eh? So, Australia? (Just curious, I noticed you're a fairly new poster, as am I, and I find gamer demographics interesting).
Glad your experience is positive so far. I've lurked for a long time around here and I've found these boards have some of the best posters around. Though, yes, there is some mighty variation in how hardcore or casual some may be. Different strokes for different folks and all that. I'm Canadian, btw.
Now back to the topic. . .
Good call on getting a jump start on this decision. Stick to your guns whatever the choice.
Haha yeah it's 2am here. Although if he actually is an assassin irl it would make a lot of sense......I'm Canadian, btw.
Good call on getting a jump start on this decision. Stick to your guns whatever the choice.
Ah a compatriot! Where do you hail from in the great white north?
Ok I've made my decision. No necromancy due to it causing unbalance.
This thread has been great for me, it's made me think in less binary terms when it comes to the alignments and classes. And if I dont like something a bit of creating reimagining can fix it.
I'm glad I posted you guys are a great community, thanks to everyone that posted and gave their thoughts.
Ah a compatriot! Where do you hail from in the great white north?Haha yeah it's 2am here. Although if he actually is an assassin irl it would make a lot of sense......I'm Canadian, btw.
Good call on getting a jump start on this decision. Stick to your guns whatever the choice.
A little more east than you. Prince Edward Island. Considering our population, I'm probably the only person who posts from this province. Before I started posting (two days ago) my area was sorely underrepresented. Still is I suppose.
Ok I've made my decision. No necromancy due to it causing unbalance.
This thread has been great for me, it's made me think in less binary terms when it comes to the alignments and classes. And if I dont like something a bit of creating reimagining can fix it.
I'm glad I posted you guys are a great community, thanks to everyone that posted and gave their thoughts.
Glad you got what you were looking for. Good luck with the first session and let us know how it works out.
Cheers,
Tony
2- the players don't get to decide what other players should play.
I am going to go off topic to discuss this if people don't mind.
Maybe players should have a say in what others play. Our group uses a player veto. That is to say the rest of the group can veto someones character by majority vote (GM is tie breaker if a tie occurs). We also support everyone working together as a team to build an effective and interconnected party NOT just a random group of "murderous hobos" to borrow someone else's term. So far the player veto has worked very well at keeping the group involved and on task. Every now and again a concept gets vetoed, but most of us are mature enough not to take it personally and just work out something else with the group. One of my own concepts got vetoed in fact (a psi based character for an Eberron game). It just turns out the group wasn't ready to add psionics yet. So I made a cleric instead. No hard feelings and everyone stays happy.
|
This still assumes that he arbitrates that necromancy is inherently evil.
If he decided it is not, then the necromancer isn't "committing evil acts for their own gain."
And what if the necromancer goes out of his way to raise the dead to help others?
If a necromancer raises a corpse to take an arrow for a little girl, was the act good, evil, or neutral?
As a GM, I'd arbitrate that act is good, not evil, regardless of the spell descriptor.
Then why not view the Assassin in the same way. The only reason it is considered evil is because of an alignment restriction which, as we are discussing re-flavoring classes anyway, can be hand-waived. Why couldn't an assassin kill to help others? If the assassin kills a landowner known for terrorizing and abusing his servants, is this an evil act?
The simple fact is that both the Assassin and the necromancer are inherently evil concepts. With some work and houserules they can both be redefined to allow for non-evil characters. That said, the OP is only attempting to do this for the necromancer concept, after refusing to do this for the Assassin. That demonstrates potential bias.
It's easier to make an argument for murder always being evil, even if done to evil people.
Raising the dead is a lot grayer, especially since settings exist with good necromancers and good undead already.
Maybe have the necromancer raise unliving instead of undead.
Agreed. Especially since creating weaker level undead is basically just using discarded dead flesh to create automatons. No different than using clockwork creatures. The alignment designation of such an act is purely cultural, because it depends solely upon how much respect is due to the dead. There are cultures that believe that the bodies of the fallen are now husks, and that only the soul has any significance or worth (and since the soul is fled, the body is just so much meat). Such cultures would consider the creation of zombies and skeletons as no different than using summoning spells or making a construct. The trouble comes from the higher level necromantic spells, because those DO twist both soul and body, and forces a sentient being into your control and slavery, as well as placing them against their will into a less-than-pleasant unlife.
Back to the original point though, since you're playing RotRL, i should point out 2 things. 1: Cayden Cailean has absolutely nothing in his religious tenants that tell him to go against necromancy. Ol' Cayden doesn't like slavery, so he'd probably have every right to be mad if the necromancer created a ghoul and then forced it to act as a meat-shield (a ghoul being a sentient creature, rather than just a pile of meat animated by negative energy), but although he might find zombies squicky, nothing about his religion specifically states that he'd have to put his foot down. 2: There are no non-evil aligned gods that would bestow necromantic spells to their worshippers as far as I know. The closest god/goddess to having death-related domains is Pharasma, and since she'd solidly anti-undead...
Really, his only choice would be to worship Nethys and venerate necromancy as just another sort of magic to be used. They technically shouldn't be having a religious kerfuffle until you're necromancer starts raising ghouls and vampires and stuff. On the other hand, plenty of other people (PCs and NPCs) might consider it culturally disrespectful to abuse bodies like that, even though religiously speaking, no problem.
2- the players don't get to decide what other players should play.
I am going to go off topic to discuss this if people don't mind.
Maybe players should have a say in what others play. Our group uses a player veto. That is to say the rest of the group can veto someones character by majority vote (GM is tie breaker if a tie occurs). We also support everyone working together as a team to build an effective and interconnected party NOT just a random group of "murderous hobos" to borrow someone else's term. So far the player veto has worked very well at keeping the group involved and on task. Every now and again a concept gets vetoed, but most of us are mature enough not to take it personally and just work out something else with the group. One of my own concepts got vetoed in fact (a psi based character for an Eberron game). It just turns out the group wasn't ready to add psionics yet. So I made a cleric instead. No hard feelings and everyone stays happy.
Yeah, I agree with both sides to some extent. Certainly, no player should dictate what another player gets to play and no one player's desires should dominate any other players' choices.
On the other hand, the group should always have some form of agreed upon consensus when it comes to what is appropriate for any given campaign. This is more about the players and the GM working together to manage each other's expectations so that everyone has a similar understanding.
You might *really* want to veto the necromancer unless these are your only two players. Minions wreak havoc upon game balance.
Specifically, it is really difficult for the GM to plan a combat that hits that sweet spot between "exciting challenge" and "too hard" when the PCs have lots of minions.
It is not that the minions themselves are broken. They just add too many elements into the situation to allow for careful planning.