|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to offer some thoughts on various things that have come up.
Pathfinder Society before other concerns: It's interesting to note that even many faction leaders don't feel this way. Ollysta of the Silver Crusade is an obvious example... she sees the Society as a tool/means for her own benevolent agenda. Perhaps in more idealistic terms than 'tool or means' (she is a Paladin of the Goddess of Honesty, after all; I suspect she is not much of a 'schemer' thus)... but it's clear she sees the world as Silver Crusade first, then the Society. She probably follows the Cooperate tenet as far as she can, but the impression I get is even the leaders have other motives and do not view the Society's goals as an ultimate concern.
How that impacts any resolution of this topic, I'm not immediately sure. Still, it adds some fascinating context and seemed like it was worth sharing.
Regarding Paladins: While there is an onus on the Paladin's player to present them as reasonably cooperative and sensible, I do want to note it's no real surprise when their players get either defensive or have their character become confrontational. Think about it; we have tons of "Should this Paladin Fall for Reason X, Y, or Z?" threads on these forums. I can see them being really cautious about avoiding a Fall in light of this.
Can you envision a situation in which an overzealous GM tells the Paladin's player, "Your Paladin is cooperating with undead. Fall."? Can you envision that being a headache the Paladin's player really wants to avoid since appealing it would require escalation to PFS game staff (be it Venture officers or Mike Brock or whoever it ends up going to)?
I can. Same deal for Pharasmite Clerics and similar characters. If we want their players and/or characters to be more cooperative, it might help a lot to lay out an explicit safety net in the rules so they don't have to worry about juggling 'cooperation' alongside 'not gutting my character's concept and/or abilities.'
Regarding BigNorseWolf's advice of a flowchart of responses: It's a nice idea, and I think in general it helps. However, I will note I did something similar in a campaign a while back with a disruptive character (I'll spare the details, but imagine every terrible thing possible; they probably did it) and at some point the flowchart of compromising responses just wasn't helping; he was still a punk.
I would thus add at the bottom to any such list a response possibility of: "Other character and/or their player is genuinely going too far even within the PFS concept of insisting others Cooperate with them. Dig in heels, stand ground." At some point, yielding and compromise must become two way streets in order to work.
|
So the Pharasma/Necromancer would work if he never created undead??
Or is this thing a total non-starter?
Well Saluzi, in PFS I have a 3rd level cleric of Pharasma/ 3rd level Necromancer/ 8 level Mystic Theurge. Fatum Aedituus Veneficus . Well it looks like i havn't updated the online profile to represent my character making it through through the Eyes of the Ten arc and Race for the Runecarved Key. But that should give you a general idea of the character.
I started the character back in november 09, when I was going to our local convention in Vermont called Carnage on the Mountain. I started the character out as a cleric of pharasma for his first two levels, and at third level I took a level of Necromancer. I was tickled pink that I had a character whom had both the Turn Undead feat, and the command undead feat from his necromancer level. I thought i would only play this character at Carnage once a year, and I only expected to get the character to 4th or 5th level.
My basic character concept was that this character studied both death and life, positive and negative energy, like a ying and yang. By studying both life and death you could have a fuller understanding of the other.
I soon realized that my Turn Undead/ Command undead was unworkable, so I abandoned it and went into mystic theurge.
My character often uses necromnacy spells to Command Undead, Hold undead, hide from undead, etc. He has gotten lots of millage out of spectral hand to channel cure light wound spells, and to use his domain abilities for repose and rebuke undeath, and now he has just gotten access to undeath to death.
When my character casts a command undead spell, he asks the undead to help him put down his master/controller...so he can then grant the undead eternal rest.
The one thing my character has never done is cast an animate dead spell....I expect if he did, he might wake up the next day finding himself without any clerical spells for a few days.
So in short, he uses necromancy to combat the undead, occasionally tries to command one so he can get an extra ally in a fight, but in the end, he does his best to destroy the undead.
I realize that this character hasn't been optimally built and I have made mistakes, but I have had allot of fun playing this character.
To answer the OP, it sounds like you did the right thing coming to an agreement with the other player. That GM picking your spells, sound well i have never heard of such a thing.
I think if there is a cleric of pharasma/ Sarenrae/ other good cleric and Necromancer, they should try and find a way to cooperate. I think that the cleric should show some restraint, and the necromancer shouldn't provoke the other players characters by doing something so disrespectful to their beliefs. Cooperation is a two way street. it works a little better with respect and consideration.
I hope this helps
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or by not actually being a Pathfinder, and just happening to work with the Society when their goals align with mine, which is often enough. :)
The campaign leadership can’t stop folks from creating characters like this (nor would we want them to I imagine). But realistically, this character shouldn’t be created for this campaign. One of the core tenets of this campaign, is that your characters are all Pathfinders.
Now please don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying you are having badwrongfun. If there really is no discernible difference during a play session, then I couldn’t care less (I do care on GM to player level, because I love people that roleplay) on a meta-game standpoint what your personal character background is. If you can explore, report and cooperate with the best of them, it makes little difference if the end results are the same.
But I see many people creating characters that are not Pathfinders, would never be a Pathfinder, wouldn’t want to be a Pathfinder, might likely oppose the Pathfinder Society, and would never make it through the training program (or get elevated in the field) to be a pathfinder.
Just like in a home campaign, if you are playing Skulls and Shackles, your GM will likely ask you to create some sort of character that would be a good pirate. And those characters that suck in all aspects of being a Pirate are not going to have much fun. Why blame the GM, you knew you were playing a Pirate campaign.
Same goes here. You know you are playing a Pathfinder Society campaign, where your character is a Pathfinder. Why would you create a character concept that wouldn’t work well as a Pathfinder?
|
|
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!
I want to work in the happy place you do where everyone gets along and is on the same page. Where I work (teacher) we have all kinds of random personalities, self-promoters, and intolerant asshats. Why would Pathfinder Society be any different? Especially when we are talking about a world in which these agents are out killing, risking their lives and uncovering amazingly powerful items.
Again, if you want a peaceful experience at tables, avoid character types like undead raising necromancers that directly agitate an entire Core class (Paladins) a significant number of another Core Class (Clerics of certain Gods) a major Faction (Andorran) and other undead hating character ideas. If on the other hand you like the RP from causing this sort of tension - the bad attention is at least attention style of gaming - then go ahead and play them. Just try not to whine too hard when you get drama for it.
Huh, can't seem to find a definition of "breaking your word". Does that make it subjective?
|
|
I want to work in the happy place you do where everyone gets along and is on the same page. Where I work (teacher) we have all kinds of random personalities, self-promoters, and intolerant asshats.
Do the teachers in your school sneak into each other's classrooms and destroy their teaching material? Because that's the equivalent of a paladin destroying a necromancer's skeletons in this metaphor.
|
|
I want to work in the happy place you do where everyone gets along and is on the same page. Where I work (teacher) we have all kinds of random personalities, self-promoters, and intolerant asshats.Do the teachers in your school sneak into each other's classrooms and destroy their teaching material? Because that's the equivalent of a paladin destroying a necromancer's skeletons in this metaphor.
No but the chalk in my classroom isn't made of human bone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No but the chalk in my classroom isn't made of human bone.I want to work in the happy place you do where everyone gets along and is on the same page. Where I work (teacher) we have all kinds of random personalities, self-promoters, and intolerant asshats.Do the teachers in your school sneak into each other's classrooms and destroy their teaching material? Because that's the equivalent of a paladin destroying a necromancer's skeletons in this metaphor.
It is however, made mostly of corpses
|
No but the chalk in my classroom isn't made of human bone.I want to work in the happy place you do where everyone gets along and is on the same page. Where I work (teacher) we have all kinds of random personalities, self-promoters, and intolerant asshats.Do the teachers in your school sneak into each other's classrooms and destroy their teaching material? Because that's the equivalent of a paladin destroying a necromancer's skeletons in this metaphor.
|
I want to work in the happy place you do where everyone gets along and is on the same page. Where I work (teacher) we have all kinds of random personalities, self-promoters, and intolerant asshats.Do the teachers in your school sneak into each other's classrooms and destroy their teaching material? Because that's the equivalent of a paladin destroying a necromancer's skeletons in this metaphor.
Probably be more appropriate to say guns, drugs, or something along those lines for a metaphor.
Also, teachers and staff do "sneak" around and check out student's lockers for these things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does that related to co-workers destroying each other's resources?Probably be more appropriate to say guns, drugs, or something along those lines for a metaphor.
Also, teachers and staff do "sneak" around and check out student's lockers for these things.
YOU try teaching at a public school without a side arm and a hefty dose of pharmaceutical assistance!
|
|
I would say a lot better as a metaphor than suggesting a paladin destroying a necromancer's undead is like a teacher destroying another's chalk. Better similarities would be between a teacher finding something dangerous and/or culturally offensive, and while not just "destroying it", having it and likely the other teacher (or student who's locker it was found) removed.
I would assume, in game, it would also be considered PvP for said Paladin to have the Necromancer jailed and legally executed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would assume, in game, it would also be considered PvP for said Paladin to have the Necromancer jailed and legally executed?
If pathfinders were arrested for every illegal act they did...
|
|
I would say a lot better as a metaphor than suggesting a paladin destroying a necromancer's undead is like a teacher destroying another's chalk. Better similarities would be between a teacher finding something dangerous and/or culturally offensive, and while not just "destroying it", having it and likely the other teacher (or student who's locker it was found) removed.
I think there's some confusion here--I was never saying chalk was an appropriate metaphor. That was someone else's response to me.
See, the initial statement was "I am a teacher, my co-workers do not get along, therefore Pathfinders can't be automatically expected to get along because they are co-workers." This is fair. A necromancer and a paladin can hate each other all day long and that's no problem for me--Pathfinders don't have to like each other. But they do have to cooperate.
So, when the paladin destroys the necromancer's skeletons--which are not like handguns or drugs because they are perfectly acceptable accessories according to campaign leadership whether you* like it or not--the proper school-based metaphor would require Teacher A to sneak into Teacher B's classroom at night and burn B's lesson plans simply because A doesn't like the way B is teaching.
That's a general "you," so don't come back with "Well I don't mind" because that's not the point--some people clearly do, hence this thread.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Really, thr problem here is that the principals in question aren't following the examples of their divine masters. (I know. It's shocking.)
Sarenrae and Urgathoa don't like one another. But do they draw weapons and go to war with one another, or personally destroy one another's portfolio? No, they do not. They gather minions and send them against one another.
So should the Paladin of Sarenrae and the Necro-priest of Urgathoa follow in their example. Not going to war against one another or attack one another's baliwicks, but rather hire intermediaries.
For the low, low price of 2 PP, my PC will be happy to go spray paint / prestidigitate rude slogans about your Pathfinder rival all around Absalom.
|
|
Extracted from "Pathfinder Chronicles Seekers of Secrets A Guide to the Pathfinder Society"
"Cooperate: The Society places no moral obligations upon
its members, so agents span all races, creeds, and motivations.
At any given time, a Pathfinder lodge might house a fiend-
summoning Chelaxian, an Andoren freedom fighter, an
antiquities-obsessed necromancer, and a friendly halfling
raconteur. Anything can (and often does) happen in the field,
but the lodge is inviolate, and agents are forbidden from
battling within its confines. Even beyond the lodge, Pathfinder
agents are expected to respect one another’s claims and stay
out of each other’s affairs except to offer a helping hand.
According to long-held tradition, Pathfinders must attempt
to parley before a potential conflict, regardless of potential
enmity based on national affiliation, personal allegiances, or
other factors."
[Geb]
Rumors have circulated for years that the
Decemvirate plans to sponsor a team of undead field agents
into the benighted realm, and recent intelligence uncovered by
Nexus House in Quantium suggests that their plan has been
in effect all along, and that the necromantic Pathfinders—
said to have been cultivated from famous agents killed in the
line of duty throughout the Inner Sea region—have been
in place for nearly a decade. Given the dangers of that
little-known land, conspiratorial Pathfinders suspect
that fresh replacement agents are always needed.