|
Over the last few months Ive had a couple of players use this spell and the problems it creates are making me wonder how other PFS GMs deal with it.
My first problem is the reaction of other players. For example I recently had a table composed mostly of strangers, another one of more regular players with a new person to the group playing an Animate Dead focused character. In both tables there was a Paladin and several other good aligned characters. When the Animate Dead specialized cleric began raising his platoon (one of the games was high tier and he raised 18 HD of zombies, I made sure he marked down the cost of onyx gem and he had the purchases already recorded on his chronicle sheet) the other characters were really put off by it and as a GM it took a lot to get the game back on track by asking players to make RP compromises and allowances. Was this a mistake on my part? I know there is no PVP in PFS and I felt it was inching close to that with the souring tone the RP was taking on.
The next problem is managing 18 or less HD on undead. I know the FAQ suggests 1 combat pet, but these aren't pets. It seems like it falls somewhere between a Pet and a Summon Monster as they stick around for the entire game. My inclination was to invoke the pet rule.
The final problem was that it is a spell with the evil descriptor. In a home game/AP casting this spell frequently would have implications to ones alignment yet in PFS thats not the case for unless I am making a mistake, there is mechanic of tracking influences upon a characters alignment from scenario to scenario. How do other GMs handle these issues?
Cheers
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may have been best to have the Raise dead character to introduce that that is the way he does things in adventures or to tell the paladin that one of his team members gives off a sort of necrotic aura from having raise dead prepared/handy. Otherwise you handled it as best you could.
As long as the characters are CN/N/LN casting the spell it shouldn't knock them down any on the alignment scale as long as they don't use them for evil acts, such as evil acts like killing a helpless NPC, or use it to raise another PC who has fallen in the scenario without full consent prior from the other PC.
Our GM/VL has two of these characters, as well as command undead, that run higher tiers, one of which he had a hand in creating. He allows them to keep up to the HD limit beyond the pet/familiar rules because the majority of them are mindless and don't need handle checks, though occasionally charisma checks when the undead are under the control of an NPC or they have intelligence high enough to deny them. We have had where the things they wished to raise got so destroyed and didnt allow the two to raise the creature such as when our ranger/fighter hit a critical vs a Bullette (random encounter).
I hope I helped somehow.
|
|
Yeah it sucked GMing with the character conflict. I tend to like and promote a high RP table and in both of the instances I noted I found myself having to ask people to back shelf their character concepts to deal with the necromancer.
When I enforced the 1 pet rule I ended up letting him use the horde for non combat roles like standing guard, carrying gear and moving into a flanking position but not actually having them fight.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Note that it is NOT PVP to refuse to aid a PC in battle. The paladins and other players have the option to not heal or buff the necromancer - as a necromancer he should be used to such social ostracizations.
I have a high-level necromancer, so I've had these encounters before. I try to rationalize to other players that the undead will be used for trap detection, guards, & front-line infantry - and those who are not detroyed by the end of the mission will be destroyed by me personally (or they can unleash their anger upon the undead... either way, they're not staying around forever).
The important thing is to not get into an alignment debate - moral and ethical surely, but not alignment. The necromancer should also realize that he needs to be smart, and not raise dead around paladins! That's in necromancer 101! As a player, he should also consider the fun of everyone else at the table... and maybe not animate every encounter of every scenario...
As a GM you will need to moderate the differences among the party- keep them on track, remind them that the pathfinders accept all, that they must work together to complete the mission, even Iomede works with Asmodeus from time to time, etc.
If this becomes a frequent problem at your table, you can request that the necromancer switch to another character while with this particular group, or that he limit his undead to no more than 3 creatures at any given time during the scenario.
Hope this helps, sorry if it doesn't make sense, running a fever while I type :-p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think that until PFS makes a change to animate undead an illegal spell. It is not within your authority to just say he can't use them in combat. If I were DM'ing, I would suggest that he keep the number down by using the higher HD skeletons (one would think he would want that anyways)if the scenario allowed for it. If a player put the time and effort into making a PFS Legal Character, then you shouldn't ruin all of his fun as well. I would also suggest that he have alternate characters for him to play, so that it isn't the same everytime he shows up for a game.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Due to the strange nature of organized play we get PCs of completely different and often opposing outlooks and backgrounds thrown together in an adventuring party that would probably never exist in a "normal" home campaign. The key to keeping it fun rests with the players. Most will talk about how one character or the other has the responsibility to tolerate the other's views and you might even here things like "that is just what my character would do" (which I detest BTW).
The bottom line is that the PLAYERS have to keep the prime tenets of the society, especially COOPERATE, at the forefront. As the GM, I tend to let the players work out their differences until it seems that either it will take a huge amount of game time or it appears that no agreement can be reached. Then I would step in. At that point, you might have to nerf both sides a bit in order to allow the game to continue. It is important to remember that often the conflict only exists two players and the others at the table suffer.
Of course, another solution is for one of the players to leave the game. I have played a paladin and intend to play another one in the future. For me, they are a lot of fun. And if my next paladin is an anti-undead zealot, I have to recognize that there will be times when I could be in conflict with another character at the table. If we cannot come to some workable resolution before the game starts, then I will probably just leave the table so everyone else can enjoy the game without conflict. OTOH, if the other player is acting like a selfish douche, I may ensure that the GM is aware of it so appropriate action can be taken, up to kicking the other player from the table.
One thing that a lot of players forget from time to time is that the society is not open for anyone and everyone to join. I believe they select candidates on the basis of two criteria; (1) can their skills/abilities be used to further the goals and activities of the society, and (2) can they uphold the three core tenets. Whether we are talking about a hard-line LG paladin/cleric of Iomedae or a CN necro-voking death priest of Zon Kuthon, the player has to consider if that PC is appropriate for organized play. If not, please keep it for your next home campaign.
I don't think that artificially changing the rules (nerfing the spell) is necessarily the "right" thing to do, but in the moment a GM has to adjudicate the best they can. Hindsight is 20/20. IMO, the best thing to do is take the conflicting players aside and tell them that they need to resolve their issue ASAP or, for the sake of the others at the table, you will make some decisions that may restrict the options of the characters. At worst, that could mean booting both of them from the table. I think my player will realize at that point how their actions are negatively impacting the rest of the players at the table. IME, the vast majority of players are reasonable.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
|
No one is saying that, I just don't want to spend all the time to create the character just to have to put up with any odd players I may come across. It would be a fun character to play, no doubt, but perhaps more appropriate with a regular group than a random group of people. It's just not a chance I'm willing to take.
|
|
Or, in other words, it can't hurt to have a differently oriented character in your bag, just in case things work out so you can't play this one.
When Undead Lords were legal, my plan was to always have another PC able to play the same sub-tier as mine, just so I could avoid issues at the table.
The same is going to hold true for my Razmiran Priest, even though he won't be doing Animate/Create Undead in general. Then again, with False Focus (and a 100 gp value Holy Symbol), and the Undead Bloodline, there is no real telling, at this point (2nd level), what he could be doing at higher level...
Besides, at some point, you will want and/or need another PC for low-tier play.
|
Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs
|
I've never seen anyone play an dead animator before, but I've heard of some who do. I've always wondered where they get the corpses to animate. I suppose it's easy enough to wait until you kill things in game, but what about those who want to start play with a small undead horde?
|
Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs
|
@Dust Raven - since corpses are not an item of a listed value, they cannot be acquired EXCEPT during the scenario, and they disappear at the end of the scenario... things worked weird for the Undead Lord archetype, but we no longer have to deal with that ^_^
Wow. That explains why I haven't seen anyone use this tactic, given the high volume of humanoid targets and things which are already undead or otherwise can't become undead, useful or otherwise.
|
|
The biggest problem with this sort of character (or a summon specialist) is not moral but mechanical: they are spotlight hogs. While the necromancer is moving his legion of zombies and rolling 12 attacks every round, everyone else is sitting around doing nothing. With a slow or unprepared player, the game grinds to a halt.
NPCs should never steal time from actual players at the table. If you can't handle running a character like this efficiently, then you shouldn't play one. Your turn should not take any longer than anyone else's turn, or you're slowing down the game.
If you dwant to play this type of character, it's best to be prepared, efficient, and not waste time counting out every possible path for every possible creature to take. Get colour-coded d20s and matching damage dice, and roll them together (put a colour-coded dot on your miniatures to show which dice is for which minion.) Know your math and be fast with it.
Otherwise, the GM is within their rights to take your PC's orders ("Attack them, my pretties!") and move/roll for you to speed things up. Remember, while players often control their own NPC minions for convenience, when push comes to shove all NPCs are controlled by the GM. (Disclaimer: I'd only do this is the game was bogging down because of it, or if the situation was being abused.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Animate Dead... make it go away!
As a player that often plays plays good orientated Pallys and Clerics I find these Re-Animators problematic for my characters. I've read several justifications for playing alongside them from keep-the-peace point of view but when you boil it down, that LG Paladin has to accept someone desecrating a human corpse and enslaving it to do its bidding. Its hard to get around the repugnant nature of such an action. All cultures have ceremony surrounding the treatment of the fallen loved ones that has elements of dignity to it. Of course history also has cultures that featured the mutilation and disgracing of fallen enemies as an aggressive means of disgracing that fallen enemy or disallowing them entry into an afterlife. That sounds pretty evil. So not surprising Animate Dead has an evil descriptor because your doing something evil!!!! So back to my Paladin. I'm seeing an evil act of a pretty darn high order being done in front of me and I'm supposed to do nothing? If I'm true to the RP of my character then I'm going to react. If I'm told by the GM to work together for the good of the adventure then I'm sorry to say, I'm leaving that table. The RP aspect of the game is why I'm there.
How this spell, used over and over doesn't change the casters alignment is silly and IMO an way to side step rules. Raising Dead is evil. It doesn't matter if your using them to plant flowers, pet puppies or drive your granny to the store. Your still desecrating the body of the fallen and removing it of its dignity. Even if your digging up the corpse of Hitler and making it say "Ooooops, sorry for starting a World War and killing millions of innocents" its still an evil act. So the fact that the CN character can cast it every adventure, maybe even multiple times per scenario is a serious by pass of the rules.
Furthermore, as I understand it, the Grave Walker, Undead Lord and Vivisectionists were removed from play because they didnt fit the feel of PFS. Seems to be that PFS is clear that the Society frowns upon having its members creating hordes of undead. So why then is this spell still available?
Furthermore... undead stink! I think my Cleric of Shelyn would be offended to even be near a walking stink bag! ;-)
|
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lass,
I see paladins in the Society being as problematic as undead raisers.
The Society frequently makes use of "extralegal" means of transport and acquisition that are clearly against a fairly generic paladin's tenets. The Society is not a strictly lawful or good organization (granted, they're moreso than the Aspis Consortium). The Society will lie, cheat, steal, cajole, blackmail, or do just about anything they can to get access to the relics, artifacts, and knowledge they seek.
The only limitation seems to be how bad the consequences may be in the future if their activities are discovered by the rulers of the lands they want to operate in.
When your paladin made the choice to join the Pathfinder Society, they agreed to the overriding goals of "Explore, Report, Cooperate" and obedience to their Venture-Captain(s). If a paladin, having voluntarily agreed to operate within the Society, cannot cooperate with the team members assigned to work with them by their superior (a Venture-Captain), then maybe the paladin needs to re-evaluate whether they can serve two masters or not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
to address your points:
1. That raising the dead is offensive to good aligned characters.
True, the pathfinders are a Neutral organization, they may find those who can raise the dead very handy for robbing tombs. If your lawful good character has chosen to join the pathfinders then obviously they feel that this compromise to their morals is worth it.
2. That evil spells should turn you evil.
Possibly true, but then good spells should turn you good. So if I cast a summon monster III for every animate dead then does that mean everything is good?
3. That PFS frowns on undead creation
If PFS truly frowned on use of undead, such spell would be banned along with all class choices that allowed the control of undead.
|
Scott Young hit the nail on the head when it comes to the "pet rule". It has nothing to do with the checks to control your pets, and everything to do with preventing one PC's personal army from hogging the spotlight away from the other PCs. As a GM, I'd definitely invoke that rule on the undead horde.
While I can see Lass's point, Jonathon Cary is right that paladins joining the Society know that they're getting into a morally neutral organization, and they'll sometimes have to work with less than scrupulous members.
I have a paladin of Iomedae in the Silver Crusade. If someone animated a corpse in front of her, she'd rant and rave about being forced to work with someone so evil, tell them to "Keep that thing away from me!", and be quite vocal about her disdain for the whole situation. But she'd go along with it, temporarily. As a player, I'd have fun with the unusual role playing opportunity, and probably metagame knowing when the adventure was over, so I could take the opportunity to smite the undead ally once it's no longer needed.
Actually, I have a friend with a true neutral cleric of Pharasma who joined the Pathfinder Society specifically to travel the world hunting undead. She'd have a bigger problem with this situation than my paladin. Or another friend of mine whose ranger has favored enemy: undead because the character's parents were killed by zombies.
There are a lot of ways this sort of thing can cause conflict within the group. I'd say it's the responsibility of the player who brings that conflict to the table to be the most flexible for the sake of the other players. In other words, if you want to animate dead, be prepared to deal with other players/characters who have a problem with it, and be prepared to compromise to keep the peace at the table.
|
|
There are a lot of really interesting opinions around this issue. First of all I think its a false equivalency to compare bribes, cheats and blackmail to raising a corpse and make it kill other sentient things. The Society asks us to gather these objects for the greater good of keeping them out of irresponsible hands, thus protecting the greater good of the world. I reckon a lot of Paladins can rationalize it as such. But bringing back corpses, sicking them on living creatures, even ones that are maybe evil themselves... that's a quantum leap away from a simple bribe.
Having had the necro threaten the RP peace of two tables now Im torn on what to do with these rotten snowflakes. I mean on the one hand the Society does tell us cooperate but at what point does that cooperation bypass ones religious views? Fromper brings up the idea of a Cleric of Pharasma and the drama that might bring to the table. Pharasma by lore sees the destruction of the undead as a personal crusade. How do those fit?
I keep seeing the argument that the Pathfinder Society is a neutral organization bounced around. This may be so but it certainly is intolerant of evil. Most of our scenarios involve stopping evil. In fact is there a scenario about stopping good? Furthermore we are banned from playing evil. So having the evil spell spammer pumping out undead armies seems like a curtailment of the rules in my opinion but then again we don't have alignment meters/morality trackers like other games. Perhaps we should for I've also had more than my share of CN characters who act for all intents and purposes as evil at my tables.
This seems to really boil down to an issue for the Role-Players. To be honest I don't think most players really care so long as we get the loot and kill the BBEG. The mechanics that I'd really like to see clarified is the "pet" rule as it relates to Animate Dead.
|
|
The way see it, who's to say it's evil to use it? Yes, it's an “evil” spell, but does using a Good spell increase you from Neutral to Good? Being neutral, whether chaotic or otherwise, you're still one step from Evil, which is all that's required for worshiping an evil deity.
Secondly, once more with good or evil, the DC character Jonah Hex has an ability to restore life temporarily. Is this not similar? Is this evil? Is this evil in his intent to find truth to do good? I don't think so. It's just an “evil” spell being used for the better good. Much as the evil of a weapon.
Lastly, if I'm understanding correctly, Osirion faction deals with seeing the undead as nothing but unliving remains of honored ancestors, and has traits which make it seem they dabble in minor necromany (casting an aura of undead around self to go unnoticed). Without too much of a stretch, I can see such a character allying with Osirion faction within the Society.
|
|
The way see it, who's to say it's evil to use it?
Actually the designers do. I'm sure Jiggy can point us to a post/s, but I believe it was both James Jacobs and Sean K Reynolds that said unequivocally, spells with the evil descriptor are evil and using them, especially routinely, puts the user at risk.
That being said, PFS has taken a softer stance on the subject. Using the spell itself doesn't necessarily result in alignment shifts, however, like anything else, if the character uses the spell (or the results of the spell) to perform repeatedly evil acts or even a single, particularly egregious one, the GM can impose penalties per the Guide. See page 36 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play under the heading "Alignment Infractions."
|
|
However, by the same standards, a neutral person casting good spells is inherently good. When in reality they could just be trying to save their own skins. (Also, I was speaking in-characters'-views as opposed to rules. I didn't separate the fluff of good vs evil from the crunch of one alignment step. Paladins would see it as being evil while those with different ideologies, not necessarily evil, wouldn't take offense to it.)
|
|
There are a lot of ways this sort of thing can cause conflict within the group. I'd say it's the responsibility of the player who brings that conflict to the table to be the most flexible for the sake of the other players. In other words, if you want to animate dead, be prepared to deal with other players/characters who have a problem with it, and be prepared to compromise to keep the peace at the table.
I agree, however I would maintain that it is the player that brings a character with such an inflexible attitude that is "bringing the conflict". Animate dead is currently permitted in PFS, if you have a character who is unhappy with such things then my feeling is that it should be up to you to figure out how your character will handle it.
there is no "right" to play at a table free from undead minions any more than there is a "right" to play at a table free from tieflings, or imps.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone who uses undead should keep this in mind: Animate Dead (and similar abilities) is a privilege. We aren't going to see the Paladin class banned from PFS (although I concur with Jonathan Cary's post above). Right now there have been conflicts at isolated tables. The Guide to PFS Organized Play has given us guidelines for flirting with the "dark side" and getting along with other players/PCs. If we can't police our own behavior and these problems continue, we will see Mike Brock step in and change those guidelines to rules. As in "Animate Dead and similar abilities are added to the banned list". We can make all the 'what is good/evil?' arguments we want, but once Mike makes a decision we will be stuck with it. Right now we have a privilege; it's up to us to keep it. Let's play nice, cooperate, and not rub the paladins' noses in the rumps of our undead minions. Don't force the campaign leadership to step in and eliminate a fun character concept.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean on the one hand the Society does tell us cooperate but at what point does that cooperation bypass ones religious views?
At every point. No one is forcing the character, whatever their religious views, to serve in the Pathfinder Society or to go on any one particular assignment. If you dont think your Paladin would feel right doing nothing about the necromancer who he or she is adventuring with, feel free to play something else.
This is not to say that in my above example, the Necromancer is always in the right. If they are purposefully trying to annoy the Paladin's player with how they are doing things, that falls under the Dont Be a Jerk rule just like it would in any other situation.
Personally, I'm fond of the idea that if the two character cant get along (placing blame equally on them for the problem in this case), then both players should find another character to play, in the interest of table fairness.
|
|
I see a lot of pointing to the Paladins as being the problem class with Necromancy but it most certainly is not just them - though by taking that class on they are often the most demonstrative objectors to evil actions. However most good aligned, and even some neutral aligned characters by the nature of their divine relationships (Saranrae and Pharasma for example) would/should object to having a Re-Animator among them. But in general, if one needs to consider the morality of Animate Dead, imagine a deceased loved one dug up by someone, had strings tied to them and made to dance like a puppet and you may get an idea about how offensive and evil such an act, or in this case spell Animate Dead is. Its a far far way from comparing it to bribing and blackmailing NPCs for a greater purpose that usually involves the greater good of keeping powerful artifacts out of the hands of BBEGs.
So in reply to the people who are trying to turn the disruptive behavior upon the Paladin, I would remind you that Society has already moved away from the Necromancer in banning related archetypes. Furthermore I would propose that in the grander scheme of things, what play style would you rather promote, a good themed one or a morally ambiguous one where the CN characters are working grey areas of morality to achieve their means? If you think the second is the more attractive style of play to promote then how will you handle the CN guy who wants to torture the NPCs at the table, maybe go into even more egregious means of accomplishing the mission. For me personally, I would MUCH prefer the promotion of good themed play over the morally ambiguous especially since a lot of young children play the game.
Now of course I don't want everyone to be stuck in a cookie cutter mold of play. While I love Superman, I agree he needs a Batman to balance the Justice League out. But Batman has distinct moral restrictions such as not killing (let alone some kind of Bat-Re-Animation spray). My point being, Pathfinder Society can function with the Goody Goodys and the Shady Greys without doing evil things like Animating Dead Aunt Bettsy and using her smelly corpse to kill other living things. In other words we don't have to promote evil to accomplish our goals.
Furthermore I too am concerned about the mechanics of the spell. The original poster described the animation of 18 HD of undead that would last the entire scenario??? I've personally never encountered this spell from a player at a table I've run but I should hope the 1 Pet rule would be relevant here. Yet if I were to invoke that rule, its understandable that the Necromancer player might get angry. Even here across this conversation there have been variations of the opinions of how it should be ruled. I know as a GM the last thing I want to deal with is the drama of telling a person they cant use a horde of undead even if it does eating up 10 minutes per turn in their use. Some clarifications on that issue please.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean on the one hand the Society does tell us cooperate but at what point does that cooperation bypass ones religious views?
That's where my reference to serving two masters comes in. If your character is unable to obey the directives of the Pathfinder Society without violating the tenets of their religion, then maybe the Pathfinder Society is not for them.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean on the one hand the Society does tell us cooperate but at what point does that cooperation bypass ones religious views?That's where my reference to serving two masters comes in. If your character is unable to obey the directives of the Pathfinder Society without violating the tenets of their religion, then maybe the Pathfinder Society is not for them.
And if a necromancer is unable to obey the directives of the Society without antagonizing any teammate who happens to have morals, then maybe the Society isn't for them.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean on the one hand the Society does tell us cooperate but at what point does that cooperation bypass ones religious views?That's where my reference to serving two masters comes in. If your character is unable to obey the directives of the Pathfinder Society without violating the tenets of their religion, then maybe the Pathfinder Society is not for them.And if a necromancer is unable to obey the directives of the Society without antagonizing any teammate who happens to have morals, then maybe the Society isn't for them.
No.
Every player gets to play their own character. They create the personality, they make it with the legal options, they get to use it.
You're trying to hand the paladins player control over what the necromancer's player can do by virtue of the paladin's presence. No player is supposed to limit another player like that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But in general, if one needs to consider the morality of Animate Dead, imagine a deceased loved one dug up by someone, had strings tied to them and made to dance like a puppet and you may get an idea about how offensive and evil such an act, or in this case spell Animate Dead is. Its a far far way from comparing it to bribing and blackmailing NPCs for a greater purpose that usually involves the greater good of keeping powerful artifacts out of the hands of BBEGs.
This is actually culturally biased. Osirians wouldn't necessarily find it offensive, but people from Ustalav would certainly consider cutting your head off for a first offense.
So in reply to the people who are trying to turn the disruptive behavior upon the Paladin, I would remind you that Society has already moved away from the Necromancer in banning related archetypes.
I wasn't trying to turn the "disruptive behavior" upon the paladin, I was just pointing out that a character that won't cooperate with their fellow Pathfinders is equally to blame, regardless of the morality of their acts.
Furthermore I would propose that in the grander scheme of things, what play style would you rather promote, a good themed one or a morally ambiguous one where the CN characters are working grey areas of morality to achieve their means? If you think the second is the more attractive style of play to promote then how will you handle the CN guy who wants to torture the NPCs at the table, maybe go into even more egregious means of accomplishing the mission. For me personally, I would MUCH prefer the promotion of good themed play over the morally ambiguous especially since a lot of young children play the game.
But what we have an explicitly neutral-themed campaign. I really enjoyed Living City, where the good guys were always good and the bad guys were sometimes redeemable. It was a fun campaign where you could go forth and Do Good and fit in perfectly with the themes of the campaign.
I really enjoyed playing Living Greyhawk here in the Bandit Kingdoms, where we were oppressed by an evil demigod and being a paladin meant taking your character's life into your own hands every time you played. We killed off a lot of good-aligned characters around here, but the only high-level paladin we had was always viewed with awe and respect -- because he'd navigated these murky, morally-ambiguous scenarios over and over again without dying or compromising his principles. It was not an easy path to follow. Here, however, the good guys weren't always shining beacons of good, but the bad guys were clearly and irredeemably evil.
Pathfinder Society Organized Play is neither of these. The Pathfinder Society is not a do-good organization. They're tomb robbers and looters. They amass knowledge and powerful artifacts for themselves and lock all of it away from the rest of the world.
My point being, Pathfinder Society can function with the Goody Goodys and the Shady Greys without doing evil things like Animating Dead Aunt Bettsy and using her smelly corpse to kill other living things. In other words we don't have to promote evil to accomplish our goals.
And when Aunt Bettsy is instead Thog the Murderous, a half-orc from a tribe that's been murdering and slaughtering innocents, and your FLN (friendly local necromancer) animates his dead body and sets it against the rest of the tribe... is that in inherently evil act?
Some people would see that as no more than justice. You're punishing the guilty and not risking the lives of good soldiers to do so.
Furthermore I too am concerned about the mechanics of the spell. The original poster described the animation of 18 HD of undead that would last the entire scenario??? I've personally never encountered this spell from a player at a table I've run but I should hope the 1 Pet rule would be relevant here. Yet if I were to invoke that rule, its understandable that the Necromancer player might get angry. Even here across this conversation there have been variations of the opinions of how it should be ruled. I know as a GM the last thing I want to deal with is the drama of telling a person they cant use a horde of undead even if it does eating up 10 minutes per turn in their use. Some clarifications on that issue please.
That's a whole different ball of wax :) As long as the player is capable of running a large number of pets efficiently, I have no problem with it, personally. The problem (like we've seen with other classes) is that a lot of players aren't prepared to run that many combat pets. On the other hand, how is this different from summoning a horde of dogs with a summon nature's ally spell? Are we to limit the number of summoned creatures that you can control at one time? I recently played in a scenario where the druid summoned 3 eagles that couldn't harm the bad guy, but did a great job of filling up spaces around him so the good guys couldn't get at him. The druid's player continued to roll all 9 attacks every round and refused to move them out of the way even after it was demonstrated that they couldn't do any damage to the bad guy. Should we ban summon nature's ally?
|
|
I mean on the one hand the Society does tell us cooperate but at what point does that cooperation bypass ones religious views?That's where my reference to serving two masters comes in. If your character is unable to obey the directives of the Pathfinder Society without violating the tenets of their religion, then maybe the Pathfinder Society is not for them.And if a necromancer is unable to obey the directives of the Society without antagonizing any teammate who happens to have morals, then maybe the Society isn't for them.
No.
Every player gets to play their own character. They create the personality, they make it with the legal options, they get to use it.
You're trying to hand the paladins player control over what the necromancer's player can do by virtue of the paladin's presence. No player is supposed to limit another player like that.
I'm not sure what pisses me off more. The sheer quantity of people in this thread suggesting that paladins should be banned from Society, or the fact that you're making me out as the bad guy for sarcastically using the exact same arguments with the exact same wording (just in case the sarcasm wasn't obvious enough) against necromancers.
Go back and reread my earlier comments in this thread. As I said, if a necromancer started animating dead at a table where I was playing my paladin, there wouldn't be a problem between the players. The characters would hate each other, but I'd have fun RPing my paladin being upset about it, and we'd move on without anyone interfering with anyone else's character.
|
|
or the fact that you're making me out as the bad guy for sarcastically using the exact same argumentsUsing sarcasm on the internet is like winking on the phone.
Which still doesn't explain why you jumped down my throat for my comment about limiting players with necromancers, while ignoring the post I responded to, which used the exact same wording about limiting players with paladins. It's ok to remove the defining characteristic of the paladin class (their morality), but not ok to remove the defining characteristic of necromancers (their undead minions)?
Forget the necromancers, this thread needs to be merged with all the "Why all the paladin hate?" threads that are so popular.
|
|
@ TetsujinOni - I know you????? I dont think its been settled on if the leadership of Society has ruled upon it. After all there is a lot of ambiguity being discussed here in this message line. Furthermore the leadership has banned related archetypes. You say that:
"This, this is why I keep coming back to "some concepts are not good (or at least require some finesse) for Society play". One of those concepts happens to be most of the class called "paladin". Another one is "hardass cleric of Pharasma"."
Well that's your opinion and perhaps you prefer a darker variety of PFS. I personally don't and would argue that PFS would suffer greatly with the exclusion of Paladins and other goody goody character types.
@ Jonathan Cary - We do have a neutral themed campaign but also an explicitly NON-EVIL campaign. No evil characters allowed! We hunt down evil bad guys all the time. Many of whom are these very same necromancers. Therefore the playing of characters who are for all intents and purposes evil (... oh sorry I'm CN so I can do anything) is going against the implied of the spirit of Society play. Furthermore, if we are to turn a blind eye to the evil of necromancy, well why not start torturing the NPC - hey lets RP it out in all its gritty gory since we are neutral! Maybe we can even threaten sexual violence against NPCs since its all for the greater glory of "cooperation". My point being, there are and should be limitations to what is acceptable behavior at a table, Neutral campaign or not. Raising the dead for the purpose of killing the living is pretty damn evil, even if it is Thog the Murderous. This is why it has the evil descriptor and not a neutral one.
As to the mechanics, Summon Nature's ally is a 1 round per level spell. Animate Dead has no such restrictions. Once the dead are walking they are there for the rest of the game. There is a difference there as well as in the total possible critters placed onto a battlemap at one time. As a hypothetical, how would you rule the Necromancer PC who in a big city goes to several graveyards casting this spell getting 4HD of undead per level. If we use J-Bone's example from above of a 9th lvl cleric doing this then we have potentially 36 HD under his control. As a player at such a table am I supposed to sit patiently while all of this is managed? So Im sure the necromancers are happy in the area you Venture Captain away in, yet that does not make it an official ruling.
|
|
No.
Every player gets to play their own character. They create the personality, they make it with the legal options, they get to use it.
You're trying to hand the paladins player control over what the necromancer's player can do by virtue of the paladin's presence. No player is supposed to limit another player like that.
I'm not sure what pisses me off more. The sheer quantity of people in this thread suggesting that paladins should be banned from Society, or the fact that you're making me out as the bad guy for sarcastically using the exact same arguments with the exact same wording (just in case the sarcasm wasn't obvious enough) against necromancers.
Go back and reread my earlier comments in this thread. As I said, if a necromancer started animating dead at a table where I was playing my paladin, there wouldn't be a problem between the players. The characters would hate each other, but I'd have fun RPing my paladin being upset about it, and we'd move on without anyone interfering with anyone else's character.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting we should ban paladins. I'm just pointing out that if you play a paladin that's a member of the Society, you have to be aware that there are compromises you're going to have to make between your paladin's code and the Society's directives. The same goes with Pharasman clerics and inquisitors. Play your character, but when you create them you need to be aware of the campaign themes and make sure you character can operate within those parameters.
|
|
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting we should ban paladins. I'm just pointing out that if you play a paladin that's a member of the Society, you have to be aware that there are compromises you're going to have to make between your paladin's code and the Society's directives. The same goes with Pharasman clerics and inquisitors. Play your character, but when you create them you need to be aware of the campaign themes and make sure you character can operate within those parameters.
And yet, when people have said the exact same thing about necromancers in this thread, the overwhelming response has been to blame the paladins.
For the most part, I agree with Lass. The Pathfinder Society may be a neutral organization, but it's a neutral organization that leans towards the good side. That's what distinguishes the Pathfinders from the Aspis Consortium.
But I do agree that Lass takes it a step too far in not accepting any undead under any circumstance, as long as the spell's allowed under Society rules. My paladin would have a problem with a necromancer animating the corpses of innocent civilians who were killed by the bad guys, just like she'd have a problem if members of the party decided to go around mugging people on the street. But if the necromancer was animating the corpses of clearly evil fallen enemies, and took the time to argue with me about why it's for the greater good, then my paladin would grudgingly accept it. It would cause conflict, but it would be in character conflict that we could have fun role playing, not out of character conflict.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Jonathan Cary - We do have a neutral themed campaign but also an explicitly NON-EVIL campaign. No evil characters allowed! We hunt down evil bad guys all the time. Many of whom are these very same necromancers. Therefore the playing of characters who are for all intents and purposes evil (... oh sorry I'm CN so I can do anything) is going against the implied of the spirit of Society play. Furthermore, if we are to turn a blind eye to the evil of necromancy, well why not start torturing the NPC - hey lets RP it out in all its gritty gory since we are neutral! Maybe we can even threaten sexual violence against NPCs since its all for the greater glory of "cooperation". My point being, there are and should be limitations to what is acceptable behavior at a table, Neutral campaign or not. Raising the dead for the purpose of killing the living is pretty damn evil, even if it is Thog the Murderous. This is why it has the evil descriptor and not a neutral one.
There is a limit to what you can do, certainly. However, fiction is full of anti-heroes -- people that use immoral means to fight greater evils. Check out The Chronicles of Amber and the various Elric novels for examples. Should we ban those character concepts, as well?
Also, this is not a slippery slope. Casting an animate dead spell in-game is not the same as getting into graphic detail of torture or sexual abuse, nor is allowing the first the same as condoning the latter.
As an example, I had to warn a player last weekend. His (CN) halfling barbarian wanted to eat the hearts of the harpies they'd just killed. I informed him it wasn't exactly a neutral act. His reply was that they weren't human, so it was ok. I replied that they were still sentient, and that his character would be aware of that (they were wearing armor and using weapons). In the end, he dropped it -- and if he hadn't I would have noted an evil act on his Chronicle at the end of the scenario. Why? Because the act was gratuitous -- there was no higher purpose being served (the party was not starving, had plenty of food, and eating the heart would not have prevented a greater evil.
As to the mechanics, Summon Nature's ally is a 1 round per level spell. Animate Dead has no such restrictions. Once the dead are walking they are there for the rest of the game.
Duration doesn't really matter -- it's how it impacts the game that's the issue, regardless of whether the delay is caused for every round in a fight because of a 5-round duration spell or a permanent duration spell.
There is a difference there as well as in the total possible critters placed onto a battlemap at one time. As a hypothetical, how would you rule the Necromancer PC who in a big city goes to several graveyards casting this spell getting 4HD of undead per level.
Just wandering around to random graveyards and animating random interred corpses? I would:
A) Warn them that disturbing the rest of those interred in sanctified ground is an evil act and (if they persisted)
B) Have the city guard arrest them and throw them in jail for the rest of the scenario.
There's a difference between raising the corpses of your enemies to combat their former allies and raising the corpses of random strangers that have been properly interred. This is a bit of a strawman, however, as I haven't heard of anyone actually trying this in a game.
If we use J-Bone's example from above of a 9th lvl cleric doing this then we have potentially 36 HD under his control. As a player at such a table am I supposed to sit patiently while all of this is managed?
If it's interfering with game play, then it's the GM's duty to address it with the player. However, 36 HD may only be two creatures. A CR 9 Tyrannosaur is 18 HD, and as a 9th-level character I'd much rather have a couple of 18 HD zombies than 18 2 HD zombies. Again, this is something of a strawman as you're unlikely to have a horde of low-HD bad guys in a high-tier scenario, and even if you do then the GM needs to step in and say, "That's too much, it will slow the game down and we only have x hours to play in." If the GM isn't doing their job properly, then that's another issue.
So Im sure the necromancers are happy in the area you Venture Captain away in, yet that does not make it an official ruling.
I'm not issuing a ruling. I never stated or implied that I was. I'm not permitted to issue rulings either here on the boards or in my local area. I don't even overrule my local GMs on calls. Their table, their decision, their responsibility. I prefer it this way, as I've seen good GMs quit running for a campaign over this sort of issue and I have no intent of repeating those mistakes. Does everyone make the same calls I do? No, and that's okay.
There is, however, a campaign ruling from Mike Brock stating that casing a spell with the [evil] descriptor is not an inherently evil act. That it is, in fact, the use to which the spell is put that determines whether an evil act has been committed. I realize this is a variance from the core rules. However that is the campaign rule we operate under.
By that logic, casting animate dead is not an evil act if you put the resulting undead to good (or at least neutral) use. Your paladin, or Pharasman cleric or inquisitor of Sarenrae may feel free to object and even vocally condemn the means to achieve the end but, as a member of the Society, you are obligated to cooperate with them so long as you're both in pursuit of the Society's goals.
|
|
And yet, when people have said the exact same thing about necromancers in this thread, the overwhelming response has been to blame the paladins.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting we should ban paladins. I'm just pointing out that if you play a paladin that's a member of the Society, you have to be aware that there are compromises you're going to have to make between your paladin's code and the Society's directives. The same goes with Pharasman clerics and inquisitors. Play your character, but when you create them you need to be aware of the campaign themes and make sure you character can operate within those parameters.
I wasn't really blaming the paladins, I was pointing out that there has to be give and take. You'll note in my latest reply to Lass I distinguish between randomly raising the dead and raising the dead for a specific purpose. One is ok, the other is not, and the necromancer's player has to be aware of that difference and be sure that his character is going to fit into the Society as well.
On the other hand, I don't normally hear about necromancers telling paladins not to heal the sick because they need the corpses to raise... ok, so maybe I was blaming the paladins a little bit. :)
I don't see anyone telling a paladin, for example, that they can't use their Lay on Hands to stabilize a fallen foe because there's no gain for the party in it. However, I do hear about paladins telling necromancers that they can't raise the dead even when it would benefit the party.
For the most part, I agree with Lass. The Pathfinder Society may be a neutral organization, but it's a neutral organization that leans towards the good side. That's what distinguishes the Pathfinders from the Aspis Consortium.
That "good side" is that the Society doesn't turn around and sell the relics and artifacts they collect to the highest bidder. Instead, they lock them away in vaults so no one else can get at them. That's a really fine line...
But I do agree that Lass takes it a step too far in not accepting any undead under any circumstance, as long as the spell's allowed under Society rules. My paladin would have a problem with a necromancer animating the corpses of innocent civilians who were killed by the bad guys, just like she'd have a problem if members of the party decided to go around mugging people on the street. But if the necromancer was animating the corpses of clearly evil fallen enemies, and took the time to argue with me about why it's for the greater good, then my paladin would grudgingly accept it. It would cause conflict, but it would be in character conflict that we could have fun role playing, not out of character conflict.
I'm totally okay with this scenario. It's when one player tells another player that they can't play the character they've created the way it was intended to be played, to use those class abilities that they're designed to use, that I have a problem.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which still doesn't explain why you jumped down my throat for my comment about limiting players with necromancers, while ignoring the post I responded to, which used the exact same wording about limiting players with paladins.
No one is limiting players with paladins. People are limiting players that insist their character (and thus the player) has the right to police the rest of the party, dictate their actions, and dictate their spell, feat, and resource allocations.
The necromancer is not demanding control over any of the other players or their characters. The paladin IS. THATS the difference.
A paladin doesn't NEED to be played that way. But many people think they do need to be played that way.
It's ok to remove the defining characteristic of the paladin class (their morality), but not ok to remove the defining characteristic of necromancers (their undead minions)?
They can choose to act as morally as they wish. No one is stopping them. What they can't do is force that morality on the rest of the table.
|
|
I see a lot of hair splitting over the morality issue. Its ok to Animate a fresh corpse but not one in the ground. Its not evil to make them but you'll get arrested for doing so... hmmmmm...
Looks like its going to be a GM call not only on the morality but also on the "pet" rule.
(J-bone, feel free to PM me and/or Evan about specifics if you want to kick around ways to improve the play experience for you and the rest of the tables you're running in the face of crowds. It's not the master summoner issue, but similar strategies to dealing with them at the table could work).
I guess I know you but dont worry I wore my big boy pants when I ran the game and everyone had fun. No reason to call Daddy.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a difficult concept. One side is not universally in the wrong here.
It is fine to play a Paladin in the same party as a Necromancer in PFS.
It is fine to play a Necromancer in the same party as a Paladin in PFS.
It is NOT fine for a Paladin's player to act like a jerk and pick fights about how the Necromancer is infringing on his or her ability to have fun.
It is NOT fine for a Necromancer's player to act like a jerk and pick fights about how the Paladin is infringing on his or her ability to have fun.
Cooperation is one of the core tenants of the Pathfinder Society. If you (the player or the character) have a problem with a member of your party for whatever reason, you may feel free to remove yourself from that situation by not playing at that table.
If both parties (players and/or characters) are unable to cooperate, the GM should step in (OOC for players, IC for characters) and stop the situation.
Get along, or go away.