|
None of that says the Pharasman can't work with someone who does control undead, just that they can't do it themselves. You can work with someone who works with something you despise. It will be difficult, but it's doable, especially with a compromise like the OP and the necromancer partner came up with.
|
As some people had indicated previously, Its better to simply not play on the table or if possible play on a different table. I have an Aasimar Cleric of Mephistopheles who while not overtly preaching his beliefs , certainly talks about them. Hes LN, and while I play him as so, I do not doubt that others see him as simply an evil servant of an evil devil prince.
(He had a great time in the Accursed Halls)
There is a distinct lack of Clerics and Paladins locally so he has actually seen more game time that I expected him too. (In fact he started as a gm credit character who by chance happened to get played a bit). I always ask before I use him what else is at the table because as he radiates an aura of evil ,I cannot personally see why a Paladin or some Clerics would travel with him.
I have always found it hard to play him as Im not exactly sure what his place is in the society. I settled on the secrets domain of Mephistopheles.. (he wants to know everyones) and view him more as a Contractor who works for the society.
|
|
Then there is the whole explanation Major Maldris gives in the opening of First Steps II where he is breaking down what Andoran stands for and advising the new crop of Pathfinders,
dead. The crumbling ruins surrounding the city are rife with
them, and you’re likely to run into more than your fair share
over the course of your career. Undeath and the undead are
more than just a physical peril, however. Undeath is the worst
kind of slavery. And it should be eradicated like all servitude,
whether to aristocracy or to mental control. Being enslaved
to the flesh beyond when Pharasma calls one’s soul to the
Boneyard is a fate I wouldn’t wish upon my greatest enemy.
So while you plumb the depths of Asad’s Keep, remember your
solemn duty to your fellow man—both living and dead. Any
undead you encounter along the way should be freed of their
earthly shell.
That doesnt line up so well with the Undead lovers either, does it.
Basically, if you end up at a table with an undead making Necromancer and your character RP is incomparable, either play something else or dedicate about as much RP to the game as you would a game of Space Invaders. As it stands, the karma of casting evil spells and making your undead horde doesnt count against your character but rather the karma is passed along to the VCs. A nifty side step of the rules but its RAW.
|
|
None of that says the Pharasman can't work with someone who does control undead, just that they can't do it themselves. You can work with someone who works with something you despise. It will be difficult, but it's doable, especially with a compromise like the OP and the necromancer partner came up with.
No, but they also do indicate that followers of Pharasma will destroy Undead without question, no exceptions. Similarly, Sarenrae teaches that Undead are one of the irredeemable evils and must be destroyed at all costs.
Pretty sure there are faction missions that translate to "eradicate all undead!"
|
On another thread, there was someone who was proud of his construction:
3 levels cleric Pharasma
3 levels Necromancer
3 levels Mystic Theurge
Nobody seemed upset or surprised
Since I noticed all the undead in scenarios, I was seriously thinking of making one
? ? ? ?
"Suddenly, through the door into the Gods party rolled a apple made of pure gold. When Zeus picked it up, it read 'Kalisti' 'for the most beautiful'". The uninvited Eris had arrived at the party in her own way.
|
Jebus Cripes, this did degenerate into a fairly anti-necromancer thread after all. I will counter with this: Why should the necromancer be the one that has to make the sacrifice? People enjoy what they enjoy. To penalize someone simply because their character might happen to command hordes of undead to massacre its enemies isn't exactly cool. I'd say a paladin and/or cleric that has an issue with this should be considered just as guilty. Both parties need to reach an agreement. To simply ask the necromancer to cease using that character is inappropriate on several levels.
Now, back to the subject matter posed by the original poster. I'd call those two pretty far out of line on several points. I won't go into detail because of the number of people that've already said what I would have, but I will say this. I don't recall reading anywhere in any rulebooks that a DM is allowed to dictate what spells a character receives. Yes, you may have agreed to it, but this becoming an issue at all strikes me as extremely inappropriate. Pushing so hard to make an issue out of forced cooperation with a necromancer is also inappropriate.
|
|
There are one or two, but mostly from the earlier Seasons as I recall.
I think the point they where trying to make is that for an Andoran Necromancer Raisy-da McDeads, what sense does it make for the faction leader to give you a mission like that when that is your normal MO.
Likewise, how can you possibly rationalize other party members given a faction mission to destroy all undead, and also having a fellow player right there creating undead, but you can't do anything about it?
|
|
So a Faction that is absolutely against slavery and sent on a task to free all undead from their rotting prison of flesh is okay with someone else on their team further enslaving others to undeath, doing the exact thing they where just tasked with stopping? (as for Pharasma, it also specifies that no followers of hers can create undead, for any reason, and the only exception for controlling undead is to immediately destroy them.)
"Being enslaved to the flesh beyond when Pharasma calls one’s soul to the Boneyard is a fate I wouldn’t wish upon my greatest enemy. So while you plumb the depths of Asad’s Keep, remember your solemn duty to your fellow man—both living and dead. Any undead you encounter along the way should be freed of their earthly shell."
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Here's my take on it:
I sometimes play Taldan PCs. If there is a Qadiran at the table, I'll jokingly call them "Qadiran Scum" (or whatever made-up insult Edwin can think of today). My Taldan has Profession (Art Critic) and will occasionally poke fun at a bard who rolls low. None of this needs to rise to the level of PVP. I think that's the best way to handle a situation like this - have your PC complain and nag, but don't go as far as PVP. A bit of PC whining can actually be quite fun.
|
|
I've seen this at my game table a number of times where an undead raising Necromancer and the Paladin, Pharsman, Undead hunting Ranger, and or other characters took exception. Ultimately as GM I had to tell everyone to shut up and play nice or dont play at all. It sucked and left a bitter taste in my mouth but thems the rules.
Does it make sense - no.
Does it fit the Golarion lore - no.
But thems the rules.
Thing thats weird though, Undead Lords and Grave Walkers banned because they dont fit the PFS theme. Yet spells related to bringing up the dead are still allowed.
Does it fit PFS theme - no.
But thems the rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how to role play with people who's concepts you disagree with.
Instead of saying what my character WILL do (ie, burn all of the undead in the holy fire of Saranrae!) make a list of what your character might do in that situation and pick an option that your fellow players can work with.
burn all of the undead in the holy fire of Saranrae!
Kill the necromancer in his sleep
try to talk the evil doer out of his ways
Passive aggressively let the undead die... erm.. again
passive aggressively let the necromancer die.. then raise him as undead to teach him a lesson
It should be enough to bend your character concept without breaking it entirely. Its a shared play environment, we all need to bend a little to adjust to other party members.
Also remember not everyone takes threats well. It might be a chuckle to you, but after the 8th time a paladin threatened to kill him the necromancer might not find it as funny...
|
|
Here's the thing though, for Cleric's and Paladin's, being a Pathfinder is at the bottom of their list of loyalties. Paizo has made it clear in their products that followers of Pharasma, (not to mention Iomedae, Sarenrae and others), do not in any way make exceptions for Undead, especially for reasons like "well I need them for my mission".Except for, y'know, "Death's Heretic". And PFS modifies core PFRPG rules in many fashions.
Yeah but now your drawing from a novel. I don't recall novels being required reading for PFS lore and while PFS modifies core PFRPG, its usually very clear and precise when it does so. Ive yet to see anything in PFS that specifically points out that Soceity Paladins and Pharasmans must walk hand in hand with undead and sit by and watch them being used to destroy living things.
Both classes follow a strict code of conduct, and if you remember, the Undead Lord Cleric Archtype, (and a few others) where specifically targeted as not legal for this exact reason.
False. Mechanical issues with the class feature that made the undead companion, which had to be remade every game, and rebuilt based on what was available to make it.
Lets not get crazy here, from the Paizo blog that mentions the banning of the Undead lord, Vivesectionist, Grave Walker, Synthasist and Master summoner, the exact quote was:
So the thematic incongruity is pretty clearly spelled out there. There may have been problems with the Undead Companion mechanics... but there is certainly also implied problems with the theme of the archetype.
Out of character, there is a mechanical reason that such a Paladin or Cleric would not stand for something just like they would not stand for another party member murdering innocent babies. Because they can and should lose all their class features for not standing up against that. If that means PvP, (and absolutely last resort) than that is what it comes down to.
So then the GM would have to keep the animate deader from animating, as THAT would be the arguable PVP action.
I fail to see how hand-waving away a massive part of one character motivations to allow the other is somehow ok, (or worse, encouraged). Trying to say that a Paladin or Cleric would work with a Necromancer raising Undead, (or a lot of similar things) and not follow their primary duty to destroy Undead is not only incredibly stupid, but destroys outright a lot of the flavor and fluff of the setting.
Well, it's also currently required by Explore, Report, Cooperate, and all of the other Necromancer possibilities which use straightforward templates are currently allowed.
Your suggested solutions which I'm not quoting are all not...
I get the whole Cooperate thing, but this is also a shared storytelling experience and if we have to bury a major part of our character ethos and backstory to fit something that really doesn't fit then cooperate in this context really just means, stop RP and get to the end. How about this... How about don't make characters that make it impossible for others to cooperate with yours.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, too many people are trying to cause conflicts where none necessarily need to exist.
Paladins may be required by their class to seek out the destruction of all undead, but that doesn't mean they're required to have impulse control problems that make them attack on sight. The Core Rulebook listing for paladins specifically says that working with evil in the short term for the greater good is allowed. And if the paladin who has sworn allegiance to the Pathfinder Society, and is trying to influence the Society to do more good in the world (usually Silver Crusade, but doesn't have to be), then completing Society missions counts as the greater good.
If my paladin was ever assigned to work with a necromancer who animated corpses, she'd complain about it and swear to smite the undead after the mission is over, but she'd grudgingly agree to work with the necromancer and "unholy thing" for the duration of the mission. It would be a fun role playing opportunity, with no out of character conflict. Why are some of you trying to make it a bigger issue than it needs to be?
|
|
And again, too many people are trying to cause conflicts where none necessarily need to exist.
Why are some of you trying to make it a bigger issue than it needs to be?
There probably doesn't need to be conflict here... yet from the OP and my own experience running PFS games, there frequently is over this issue.
So your happy Pally works with the undead for the greater good, many other pally are not quite so comfortable doing so. I guess that means not all characters are the same and I reckon thats a good thing.
|
|
My knee jerk reaction here is to agree with the folks who said "have a backup character ready if things don't look like they are gonna pan out for you" You could always (ok, usually) play a pregen and apply the sheet to your character.
I was at a table at a con recently and during character introduction it turned out we had three Chelaxian Tieflings in the party, A rogue, a ninja, and a necromancer. A guy at the table playing an Aasimar Silver Crusade Pally just got up and walked away, lol.
That is not to say you can't disagree with an evil act another character commits and take measures, short of attacking the character, to rectify the situation. Case in point: at another recent con I was on a table where a character on cut a deal with a Naga, exchanging its freedom for some information. My character, who was a CN Andoran Fighter Rogue, said, "Not just no, but hell no!" and attacked the Naga because that's how I felt he would react.
|
|
And again, too many people are trying to cause conflicts where none necessarily need to exist.
Why are some of you trying to make it a bigger issue than it needs to be?
There probably doesn't need to be conflict here... yet from the OP and my own experience running PFS games, there frequently is over this issue.
Is there? As mentioned earlier in the thread, I've never actually had a necromancer creating undead at any of my tables. The OP said he and the necromancer player worked out the issues by themselves, in character, when it came up at their table. But then other people at the table (including the GM) made an issue of it, when there really didn't need to be.
And a couple of others in this thread keep saying that paladins and clerics of certain gods are somehow required by the gaming gods to have problems, but I notice none of them have mentioned if any of their own characters are among those that would have problems.
So the real question to me isn't how a paladin or cleric that opposes undead would react to this situation. The real question is why people who don't play those PCs keep trying to control how other people play their characters. And this includes the GM and VC mentioned by the OP in this thread, unfortunately.
|
|
That is not to say you can't disagree with an evil act another character commits and take measures, short of attacking the character, to rectify the situation. Case in point: at another recent con I was on a table where a character on cut a deal with a Naga, exchanging its freedom for some information. My character, who was a CN Andoran Fighter Rogue, said, "Not just no, but hell no!" and attacked the Naga because that's how I felt he would react.
Awesome sauce! I bet your GM remembers that moment fondly.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston
|
I get the whole Cooperate thing, but this is also a shared storytelling experience and if we have to bury a major part of our character ethos and backstory to fit something that really doesn't fit then cooperate in this context really just means, stop RP and get to the end. How about this... How about don't make characters that make it impossible for others to cooperate with yours.
Then there should be a ban on all paladins and clerics of a number of deities (Iomedae, Sarenrae, Phrasama, maybe even Abadar). Because their lawful and good ways and codes of conducts will develop at least one impossible to cooperate situation in the course of their Pathfinder Society careers (whether it be from a conflict between players or a conflict from a Society or Faction mission… regardless of the undead question).
And ban raising/controlling undead by PCs all together. And Asmodeus worshipping Chelaxians. And putting Taldans and Qadirans on the same table. Or Chelaxians, Andorans, and Taldans together. Because all are sources for potential serious conflict.
Note: I'm not advocating the above. I actually liked the RP between the bones oracle and my cleric coming to a uneasy agreement for the sake of the Society. And the byplay other characters from differing views have.
What was bothering me was the feeling that my character being punished (and threatened from further punishment) for cooperating with a fellow Pathfinder when a choice he made was against my cleric's religion. I did not raise or control the dead… but I refrained from engaging in something that is arguably PVP and therefore in violation of PFS rules. If a faction or PFS mission doesn't change your alignment… does another PCs actions?
I asked about the situation here because I wanted a sanity check. For both examples in my original post.
My knee jerk reaction here is to agree with the folks who said "have a backup character ready if things don't look like they are gonna pan out for you" You could always (ok, usually) play a pregen and apply the sheet to your character.
I should note not everyone is a fan of pregens, pregens are far from optimized, and that people usually like to play their own characters that they made themselves. Its nice to have options, but I've always found pregens lacking and have a hard time having fun with them myself. YMMV.
|
|
I'm going to step away from the Necro/Pharasma thing to bring up a related situation and its resolution.
My last session was City of Strangers part 1. I was playing my Shelyn-worshipping Paladin and another player was playing an Intimidation-focused Fighter/Rogue. The other player's MO was to knock at least one humanoid per combat unconscious, tie them up, intimidate them into giving information, then telling them to recount the encounter to all their friends and letting them go. At one point, said player extracts teeth from the corpse of an enemy combatant to add to a collection she keeps within her jacket. The character is relatively unscrupulous and the player even stated that his goal was to have a viscious character.
This borders on evil at a few places. One could make a case that this borders on torture. I was asked by another player, out of character, if my character was ok with this. I responded in-character thusly:
"So far, Trys has spared the lives of two enemy combatants and convinced them to leave us alone. How many lives have you left in tact today? About the teeth, while macabre, it's vaguely artistic. This makes her the most artistic and merciful Pathfinder I've ever encountered."
This sort of stunned the Sorceror and Monk, both of whom have Good alignments. My character has not been particularly at ease with the wandering murder hobo nature of the Society and has actively used Diplomacy to bypass combat whenever possible. The scenario did not give us such an option at any point (you're ambushed by [x]!), but Trys demonstrated a way to resolve combat without murdering the entire opposition.
I think that a candid, introspective moment for one's character can really lead to some great opportunities when conflicts like this arise and they do not need to be in the direction of PVP or DBAD violations.
|
|
Here's the thing though, for Cleric's and Paladin's, being a Pathfinder is at the bottom of their list of loyalties. Paizo has made it clear in their products that followers of Pharasma, (not to mention Iomedae, Sarenrae and others), do not in any way make exceptions for Undead, especially for reasons like "well I need them for my mission".
I get the whole Cooperate thing, but this is also a shared storytelling experience and if we have to bury a major part of our character ethos and backstory to fit something that really doesn't fit then cooperate in this context really just means, stop RP and get to the end. How about this... How about don't make characters that make it impossible for others to cooperate with yours.
In the end, are you two siding with the OP's GM and VO in this case? That the GM had full right, and perhaps a responsibility, to change the PC's prepared spells to make him weaker, and then threaten the PC with a forced atonement, just because he and the necromancer made a compromise to cooperate and not kill the necromancer's fun immediately?
|
|
In the end, are you two siding with the OP's GM and VO in this case? That the GM had full right, and perhaps a responsibility, to change the PC's prepared spells to make him weaker, and then threaten the PC with a forced atonement, just because he and the necromancer made a compromise to cooperate and not kill the necromancer's fun immediately?
Nope... that GM over stepped his authority in my opinion. I'm just not shocked necromancer drama occurred as Ive seen it several times among my player base.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston
|
Nope... that GM over stepped his authority in my opinion. I'm just not shocked necromancer drama occurred as Ive seen it several times among my player base.
In the end, are you two siding with the OP's GM and VO in this case? That the GM had full right, and perhaps a responsibility, to change the PC's prepared spells to make him weaker, and then threaten the PC with a forced atonement, just because he and the necromancer made a compromise to cooperate and not kill the necromancer's fun immediately?
Honestly, there wasn't any drama on the table until the GM started forcing the issue.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston
|
I know there's been a lot of discussion about Example A (cleric, necromancer, and GM) probably because it hits on what seems to be a consistently debated topic of necromancy. I'll be seeing both the GM and the VC this weekend and will try to have a face to face conversation about what happened. Everyone's been pretty helpful in presenting differing views for me to take into consideration. (Thanks!)
I'm interested in hearing more takes on Example B (paladin and another face character following Iomedae who wouldn't lie/bluff or help with the B&E that we had to do as part of the Society mission). This happened at a table I was on at a con.
Granted, sometimes you fail the mission you're on… but if one of the PFS characters has the skills you need and they won't use them because of a religious code… how have you handled it if it happened on a table you were on?
I'm interested in hearing more takes on Example B (paladin and another face character following Iomedae who wouldn't lie/bluff or help with the B&E that we had to do as part of the Society mission). This happened at a table I was on at a con.
Granted, sometimes you fail the mission you're on… but if one of the PFS characters has the skills you need and they won't use them because of a religious code… how have you handled it if it happened on a table you were on?
Likely if they didn't want to bluff ever, they wouldn't have many points into it if any. A legalistic oracle just can't bluff without taking a nasty penalty.
It sucks when your with someone who does that, but they probably have their reasons. If its malevolent I usually let it slide but talk about it after rather than creating an issue. I definitely avoid creating those situations when I can. I expect that if I'm in a group, we're cooperating and all helping each other.
|
|
I have a cleric of Sarenrae who refuses to lie. Everyone seems to forget Sarenrae is the goddess of honesty, among other things. My cleric has decent charisma (14) for channeling, but no ranks in bluff.
She won't participate in any lying, but that doesn't mean she'll get in the way of others. Again, it goes back to having agreed to work with the Society for the greater good, and that means sometimes putting up with people who violate your personal and/or religious morals.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I'm interested in hearing more takes on Example B (paladin and another face character following Iomedae who wouldn't lie/bluff or help with the B&E that we had to do as part of the Society mission). This happened at a table I was on at a con.
Granted, sometimes you fail the mission you're on… but if one of the PFS characters has the skills you need and they won't use them because of a religious code… how have you handled it if it happened on a table you were on?
But we see this in other realms all the time. PFS characters who get invited to a dinner party and refuse to go without their weapons and armor because "I never go anywhere without my cleaver." Or characters who sense motive every crying vilager because "my character is just naturally suspicious." We don't fuss about those because they often mean that a character is prepared for the inevitable surprise.
I'm actually happier when characters decide to intentionally limit themselves for story purposes. It means they've thought about their abilities and decided which ones actually fit their character. If someone won't lie because they've arbitrarily given themselves a religious code, I think that's great.
Does it make the game harder? Absolutely. But I think the same thing every time we have to sneak around and the big, dumb fighter won't take off his armor. And if they don't want to remove their armor, I'm certainly not going to make them. Maybe it means they stay behind and accidentally miss part of a scenario. This game is about choices and if players choose not to be railroaded, I'm all for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, purposefully gimping yourself doesn't make you a better role player and optimizing doesn't make yourself any worse. Also remember your with a group of people, and acting antagonistically is usually a bad idea.
|
|
Granted, sometimes you fail the mission you're on… but if one of the PFS characters has the skills you need and they won't use them because of a religious code… how have you handled it if it happened on a table you were on?
By finding another, more appropriate way of accomplishing the task. One that doesn't break the character's religious taboos or moral views. If that is not possible, than maybe the other players need to start thinking of attempting it while the character in question is not around, or to see if there are other ways to gain their help without them breaking their code, such as through using diplomacy or sense motive to see if they are believing or interested in what you are saying, or how they react to it as an Aid Another.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Remember, purposefully gimping yourself doesn't make you a better role player...
I completely agree. I just wouldn't tell someone that they were a bad roleplayer because they chose to gimp themselves.
I might reserve some personal feelings for their tactical decisions, but that's a different story.
Remember, purposefully gimping yourself doesn't make you a better role player...I completely agree. I just wouldn't tell someone that they were a bad roleplayer because they chose to gimp themselves.
Neither would I. The two are unrelated.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a character issue, it is a player issue. A concept that often gets lost in these types of "arguments" is that your PC joined the society of their own free will. S/he spent a number of years training under the tutelage of powerful society agents prior to being released to perform missions. As a player, you must ask yourself when creating a character, is it a PC that (1) would join the society, and (2) would be accepted by the society. If you have issues with things like undead, taking your armor off for dinner, putting the tenets of the society ahead of your personal ones, etc. then how the hell did you make it through the program to be an agent in the first place? The answer is, you wouldn't.
Pathfinder is about choices, and everyone should be given every opportunity to experience the game in whatever fashion is the most fun for them. However, organized play is a slightly different environment. It is not about YOUR fun, it is about OUR fun. Call it collective fun. If you (or your character) cannot cooperate with other agents in order to complete the assigned missions, then either PFS is not right for you, or your character is not right for PFSOP. It doesn't matter if you are a zealot paladin of [hard-ass diety] or a necro-voking death priest.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
|
|
By being a specialist field commissioned into the society because they needed my talents...my comments still apply
Not really, no.
1.) No
2.) No
Chosen by a higher power to destroy undead: Yes
Remove armor for a dinner party: if there is a good reason, sure
Putting the tenets of the PFS above divine calling: Not A Chance
Better question is are you suggesting that Good Clerics and all Paladins are just not suitable for PFS?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am suggesting that if you build a character that is intolerant of other PFS agents, then your character has no business playing PFS. Does that mean you cannot play a paladin or a cleric? No. It just means that YOU AS THE PLAYER is responsible for avoiding extreme character personalities that create conflict at the table