Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston
|
I've been looking around to see if this has been addressed before, but I haven't found anything specific.
If you have a cleric or paladin on the table with a specific set of tenants to follow, and another character at a PFS table does something that goes against those tenants... what do you do?
Example A: I have a cleric of Pharasma. Another PC brings a necromancy focused character to the table. If he raises a skeleton (or other undead), do I have to be a jerk and destroy his resources and effectiveness in order to remain in my goddess's good graces (and in the process arguably violate the DBAD and PVP rules), or do I not destroy them on sight and face loosing my clerical abilities and finding an atonement?
Or do I walk away from the table/bring another character and doom the table to a TPK because there isn't another appropriate level healer available (the table was a 10-11, so the lvl 7 Kyra wouldn't have helped enough to prevent a TPK)?
Or do I be a jerk (again) by insisting that the other player change what character he wants to play?
Example B: Player has a paladin of Iomedae. In keeping with the justice/valor/honor theme, the player has decided that Iomedae does not approve of lies. Another player, who just converted to Iomedae via long term interaction with this paladin, is the face and sneaky character on the table. Both refuse to bluff in any of the social circumstances when needed (and per the situation in the scenario it would have been a bluff check, not diplomacy), or assist with breaking into the location we needed to get to in order to fulfill the Pathfinder Society mission. (Note: only one character could have been in trouble with Iomedae if not being honest would have landed someone in hot divine water.)
|
|
Explore, report, cooperate. Bringing a character who can't work within the PFS requirements to the table is a jerk move.
In other words, knowing full well that necromancers are relatively common, is Pharasma the right choice?
As to Example B, that's fuzzier. It's not so much that they are going to try to prevent the actions; they just won't help. I would be really mad if I was playing at a table and 1/3 of the player base just went dead weight on the mission itself because "ZOMG TEH GODZ," and if I were GMing at the table probably wouldn't count them as having completed the encounters they sat out of (meaning they might not get XP, if that's most of the session). But that's going to be on them, mostly.
|
The answer to both of these questions, as well as any others that fall along these lines is that your character's primary dedication needs to be to the Pathfinder Society when it is on a mission. I am not saying you cant play a Paladin, etc or that you should break your vows to get the mission done. However, if you think there is any reason that your character will not be able to do the mission presented before them, perhaps you should play another character.
I am not siding on the Necromancers side vs the Paladin's side, cause if they think they can cooperate, and then they antagonize each other during the scenario, I'm warning both of them to knock it off or leave the table.
For the Paladin example:
You are not a Paladin who happens to be a Pathfinder, you are a Pathfinder who also happens to be a Paladin.
|
|
To answer your first question more specifically, yes, many people will argue that you killing the necromancer's skeleton is PvP and violates the DBaJ rule. I would try to work it out with the other player before the scenario starts to see how the two of you will handle it.
Is the other player ok with you killing his undead minions between scenarios? Will he think it's funny for you to spend the scenario trying to convert his character to the worship of Pharasma? Etc.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston
|
To answer your first question more specifically, yes, many people will argue that you killing the necromancer's skeleton is PvP and violates the DBaJ rule. I would try to work it out with the other player before the scenario starts to see how the two of you will handle it.
Is the other player ok with you killing his undead minions between scenarios? Will he think it's funny for you to spend the scenario trying to convert his character to the worship of Pharasma? Etc.
The PC was perfectly fine with me blowing up the skeletons at the end of the scenario. He sees them as only temporary resources. In fact, we had that discussion at the beginning of gameplay. (My cleric's stance was "I don't want you to do it, but if you do they're gone at the end of the mission if they haven't been destroyed during the mission." and the PC agreed.) I don't think I'm converting a bones oracle though.
The GM, however, was effectively dangling "you're going to need an atonement if you don't get rid of the skeletons" over my head during the entire scenario. Even set my spell list the next time I prayed to mostly undead damaging spells with a side of healing. (And if he meant for me to interpret it another way, then I didn't get it.) And when I did the cooperate thing again (because I was trying to follow the DBaJ/PVP rules), I got a "tsk tsk tsk…". In the end, I did blast the skeletons, and the GM didn't require an atonement, but I spent most of the scenario worrying and trying to figure out if I would be able to pay for it (I'm currently on slow progression).
And my local VC agrees with the GM that I should have done something to the skeletons right away, walked away from the table with my cleric/used another, or convinced the other player to change their character.
I just wanted some other viewpoints before I try to discuss this with the VC and the GM again (oh, and the GM is a VL, iirc. We just had some changes locally). I want to be sure that I'm seeing this in the right context and am willing to hear any input.l
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston
|
Explore, report, cooperate. Bringing a character who can't work within the PFS requirements to the table is a jerk move.
In other words, knowing full well that necromancers are relatively common, is Pharasma the right choice?
I brought the Pharasmite because she's the only capable high level healer that was available for the table. (She's a cleric 11 and we were playing 10-11.) She is my first PFS character, created before necromancers were common.
As to Example B, that's fuzzier. It's not so much that they are going to try to prevent the actions; they just won't help. I would be really mad if I was playing at a table and 1/3 of the player base just went dead weight on the mission itself because "ZOMG TEH GODZ," and if I were GMing at the table probably wouldn't count them as having completed the encounters they sat out of (meaning they might not get XP, if that's most of the session). But that's going to be on them, mostly.
I was one of the other players. I was pretty upset, but made my silence on the matter an offering to the altar of character cooperation. (Particularly since I had already cooperated and switched characters so the table could have a front line. The paladin wasn't a good martial paladin.)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston
|
If this had been a home campaign, it wouldn't have been an issue. The two PCs probably would not have been in the same party in the first place, and if they did end up together there wouldn't be the no-PVP/DBaJ rules in place to prevent the cleric from smashing the zombies and killing/capturing/maybe trying to reform the necromancer. But this was a PFS game, making the situation more difficult.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Nether you nor the necromancer should be able to destroy each others resources. Not you by destroying his animated creature, or him by forcing you to get an atonement. If I were GMing your table, and saw the situation develop, I would have proffered an alternative.
Maybe at the end of the scenario you could have agreed that your PC returns the risen creature to Pharasma's embrace, by smiting it down and thus retaining the balance of things.
Perhaps the necromancer doesn't need to spend the money for animate dead -- it might not be a required asset in the subsequent encounters.
If you feel that your character requires an atonement, perhaps the clergy at the Pharasman temple listen to your story and pay for the cost of the atonement themselves.
Regardless, all people should be able to engage and play at a table without getting into problems like this. If their characters are at odds, that's fine -- that can be good roleplay -- but neither PC should be penalized for their PFS legal character decisions.
I see a lot of situations like this quickly move past the veil of "in character" decisions and people take things personally. He's not making the skeleton to piss you off, he's doing it because that's what his PC does. You should explain that your PC disapproves of that, but that personally, you don't mind. Have some back and forth, and then come to a decision. Don't let it devolve into a "if I did this, would it be PVP?" issue.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston
|
Forgive my asking, but under what guideline is the GM deciding what spells your cleric prepares?
Another player at the table, seeing the same thing I was (that when I prayed I was going to get the divine door slammed in my face), said to the GM "Hey, just because someone prays for certain spells, doesn't mean that they get exactly what they ask for…"
So it let the GM communicate what he saw as "the will of Pharasma" and giving me at least some healing spells in the process, instead of just completely denying me spells.
|
|
But if any GM in PFS wants to force an atonement because you went on an adventure with said "mutually exclusive" character concept, they should be drawn and quartered.
+1
Though the VC supporting such an act makes the situation far trickier. I still disagree, but 'appealing to the higher court' on that would likely mean you'd have to go to Mike about it. :/
Edited after being ninja'ed...yea, that crosses a lot of lines the GM(and your VC) has no business crossing.
|
|
Whoa, wait. A GM in PFS capacity decided your spells? That seems wrong. Justifications aside, that's like saying, "I want your fighter to use this weapon build instead of what you wanted." Player choices, man.
More OT; yeah. Cooperation. It stretches the suspension of disbelief, but there it is. You could play a shining paladin, and someone else can play a devil-summoner from Cheliax. (Which ties into a pet peeve of mine about alignment, but that's another story). Bottom line, get along. If you and the other player reach a compromise, that's fine. But keep in mind PFS is also meant for cons... what happens if you get a table with a necromancer-build player you don't know?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston
|
I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear at the beginning, but the player and I had roleplayed ourselves a compromise that didn't involve potential PVP or jerkiness. It was under the GM making comments that there would be consequences of not killing his skeletons that made me think about this situation.
It seemed like the GM was pushing my cleric into PVP or punishing the cleric for making a PFS based decision instead of a tenants of the faith based decision.
But I have been really unsure about if I am looking at this in the right way since my VC agreed with the GM (upon sharing my perspective on the situation to the VC).
|
I’m sorry, in a Home Game, fine. But in PFS, this is not ok for a GM to do.
And I’m extremely surprised that the local V-O was on board with it.
You can’t have a Campaign rule of no PvP and then penalize a person because they don’t do PvP (although it is questionable on whether destroying the skeleton is indeed PvP.)
Secondly, requiring a person to choose a different character because of a potential roleplaying conflict like this, is bad precedent. Either that means that player may not be able to play at all, or they might have to play a pregen (not everyone is Nosig with 4 or 5 characters for every possible sub-tier.)
The only reason I’d ask a player to choose another character, is if the players couldn’t agree on the final outcome. And then I’d ask them both to choose another character.
|
You know, my first thought when I saw the thread title and first post was "Not another one of these threads!" Search for necromancy or necromancer to see the flame war we had a couple of months ago on this topic.
The PC was perfectly fine with me blowing up the skeletons at the end of the scenario. He sees them as only temporary resources. In fact, we had that discussion at the beginning of gameplay. (My cleric's stance was "I don't want you to do it, but if you do they're gone at the end of the mission if they haven't been destroyed during the mission." and the PC agreed.) I don't think I'm converting a bones oracle though.The GM, however, was effectively dangling "you're going to need an atonement if you don't get rid of the skeletons" over my head during the entire scenario. Even set my spell list the next time I prayed to mostly undead damaging spells with a side of healing. (And if he meant for me to interpret it another way, then I didn't get it.) And when I did the cooperate thing again (because I was trying to follow the DBaJ/PVP rules), I got a "tsk tsk tsk…". In the end, I did blast the skeletons, and the GM didn't require an atonement, but I spent most of the scenario worrying and trying to figure out if I would be able to pay for it (I'm currently on slow progression).
And my local VC agrees with the GM that I should have done something to the skeletons right away, walked away from the table with my cleric/used another, or convinced the other player to change their character.
I just wanted some other viewpoints before I try to discuss this with the VC and the GM again (oh, and the GM is a VL, iirc. We just had some changes locally). I want to be sure that I'm seeing this in the right context and am willing to hear any input.l
It sounds like you and the necromancer player handled the situation perfectly. Your characters don't necessarily like each other, but are willing to obey the PFS motto of "Explore, Report, Cooperate". The players sound like you got along fine. I'd call this the best case scenario for two such characters at the same table.
The problem seems to be the GM and VC trying to force a conflict, in violation of PFS rules, at least from the way you describe it. Without hearing their side of the story, I can't be sure. But it sounds to me like the GM was the one person at the table violating the "Don't be a jerk" rule. Because you already have a VC involved, if he continues to try and force conflict between players like this, I'd escalate the issue to Mike Brock.
Edit: Ninja'd. Should have known not to come back to a thread like this after a few minutes without refreshing. The GM crossed a line by picking your spells for you. Normally, I'd say report him to your local Venture-Captain. If the VC already knows about this and thinks it's fine, then it's time to go over his head to Mike Brock.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston
|
Why was the GM denying you anything?
Denial had not been explicitly made: As our characters were bedding down for the night and I was prepping spells, I felt that I was going to get a divine smacks own and was worried. When the other player suggested that the GM choose the spells and the GM seemed to go along with it, I agreed (figuring that I could convert to cure spells if I was allowed because it was not an undead enemy scenario).
(Edit for better word choice and replacing an out with our…)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Years ago, I was playtesting superhero adventures for a couple of companies, and I came up with some odd concepts that were deliberately challenging:
Captain Bright -- a flying brick that always radiate a million lumens.
Squid Boy -- a normal guy. Head is a squid. Breathes water. Otherwise, knows how to drive a cab. No combat abilities.
Psycho-Ninja -- deep-scan telepathy, teleportation, great sword skills, magical weapon, hates working with others.
I wanted to see if there was any way a module took those characters into account. The hard one was Psycho-Ninja. "Find a mook. Violate his mind, and find out where the bad guys' hideout is. Teleport there immediately. Kill everyone."
So, my advice: don't make Psycho-Ninja. Don't make a character that can't cooperate with most of the other PCs. If you want a cleric of Pharasma, make one that had a conversation with his abbot at the beginning of his career.
"You're joining the Pathfiners, m'boy? That's good; the Society runs into a lot of long-lost places filled with terrible threats, and we want 'our man in Absalom', as it were. You'll have to put up with all manner of colorful compatriots. You have the church's leave to exercise some flexibility, for the much greater good of having an agent in place to avoid the apocalypse."
|
|
Why is there not a movie about this character yet? :P
Squid Boy -- a normal guy. Head is a squid. Breathes water. Otherwise, knows how to drive a cab. No combat abilities.
You say he breathes water. Does he breathe air also? Otherwise, that could be a short lived character.
In the case of a Callistrian temple, I think a tenant of faith is their term for someone who pays rent to sleep in a priestess.
|
|
Maybe it's just how I am reading this one but everyone seems to be blaming the cleric and not equally blaming the necromancer who is being just as unyielding in his stance. Both players have the SAME right to play their characters. The cleric seems to be taking the letter of the law of his goddess into account which not a lot of people do in organized play. I agree that this should be dealt with before the scenario began and handled to everyone's satisfaction with a solid compromise not just one side being told deal with it or sit this one out. I always believed everyone has the same rights to be there at the table no matter what class / level / or whatever they bring. However some classes and choices do make your level of party acceptance vary but that is based on player perception and in game character perception. The GM should always protect his players rights. I am sure this will illicit some flaming for my ideals on the subject so I will now cast protection from fire.
Matt
|
|
Maybe it's just how I am reading this one but everyone seems to be blaming the cleric and not equally blaming the necromancer who is being just as unyielding in his stance. Both players have the SAME right to play their characters. The cleric seems to be taking the letter of the law of his goddess into account which not a lot of people do in organized play. I agree that this should be dealt with before the scenario began and handled to everyone's satisfaction with a solid compromise not just one side being told deal with it or sit this one out. I always believed everyone has the same rights to be there at the table no matter what class / level / or whatever they bring. However some classes and choices do make your level of party acceptance vary but that is based on player perception and in game character perception. The GM should always protect his players rights. I am sure this will illicit some flaming for my ideals on the subject so I will now cast protection from fire.
Matt
I think you're in the wrong thread. That flame war is in a thread called "Animate Dead" that ended a month or two ago. In this one, the players actually worked out the problem between themselves just fine (thus proving that the entire other flame war thread was unnecessary, because this is how these things are supposed to work themselves out), but the GM is still trying to stir up trouble. Thus, it sounds to me like the GM is the one breaking the "Don't be a jerk" rule, not either player.
|
|
I have no issues with necro choices as players if that is what they wanna play more power to them. Same as those who play any other class. I was merely commenting on the fact everyone (gm's included) were seemingly one sided against the one player by their choices. General statement not a animate dead attack.
|
|
Isn't raising undead an evil act, leading to an evil alignment, which is not allowed in PFS?
If anything, it's my understanding that PFS is tilted towards the side of good, with most of the factions (arguably) being on the -G end of the spectrum. I'd assume that any player skirting the line by playing a -N character who worships an evil deity or uses spells with the [evil] descriptor would have a backup plan for when he comes across, for instance, with a high-ranking paladin of Iomedae of the Shining Crusade.
In the case of Cleric of Pharasma v. Necromancer, in PFS, I would put the burden of adapting primarily on the necromancer. The cleric ought to also do his part, though, following the DBaJ rule.
|
|
I admit that this particular issue has come up in my head occasionally when I'm looking at Nercomancers in a group with my Cleric of Pharasma (Baroness Roasa Del Noire of Lower Zimdar).
I figure either I find another character to play or warn the player that she won't be excluding 'friendly' undead from channelling. I know that one Necromancer understands if she does so or 'puts them down' using her Control Undead feat to make them suicide.
I do worry what will happen at a convention or a new necrmancer appears.
Realistically, I don't see why it would not be fully in-line with RP aspects like Pharasma's tenets
to simply try to non-forcefully persuade the necromancer to change his views, etc,
that is the sort of thing that everybody can appreciate as good RP'ing, and doesn't actually disrupt the game for anybody.
Nothing is forcing you to break out the divine ultraviolence at any hint of undead-ness,
in fact CANON speaks of Pharasmites who have more cooperative relationships with certain undead...
(without turning their back on Pharasman doctrine or Cleric powers granted to them)
It so happens that there can be WIDE ranges of behavior by Clerics of Deities in Pathfinder (see Sarenrae),
Gods are simply not that worried about Clerics following every of their tenets down to the micro level,
and serious schisms in Churches can and do develop whilst all concerned are continuously receiving their powers...
So the type of harsh 'do this or else' approach that the GM implemented (contrary to PFS)
just doesn't even seem appropriate in Golarion, period.
|
|
Isn't raising undead an evil act, leading to an evil alignment, which is not allowed in PFS?
If anything, it's my understanding that PFS is tilted towards the side of good, with most of the factions (arguably) being on the -G end of the spectrum. I'd assume that any player skirting the line by playing a -N character who worships an evil deity or uses spells with the [evil] descriptor would have a backup plan for when he comes across, for instance, with a high-ranking paladin of Iomedae of the Shining Crusade.
In the case of Cleric of Pharasma v. Necromancer, in PFS, I would put the burden of adapting primarily on the necromancer. The cleric ought to also do his part, though, following the DBaJ rule.
casting [evil] spells is not an evil act in PFS.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear at the beginning, but the player and I had roleplayed ourselves a compromise that didn't involve potential PVP or jerkiness. It was under the GM making comments that there would be consequences of not killing his skeletons that made me think about this situation.
It seemed like the GM was pushing my cleric into PVP or punishing the cleric for making a PFS based decision instead of a tenants of the faith based decision.
But I have been really unsure about if I am looking at this in the right way since my VC agreed with the GM (upon sharing my perspective on the situation to the VC).
Well that's a twist! Sorry that you had this happen to you. It's pretty clear that the GM forgot the cardinal rule of making the game fun for everyone. Determining what spells you can cast and how your character should act kind of ruin the whole aspect of it being your character.
I don't know if the next step for the OP is contacting the next level of PFS organizers above this VC (VL?), or if this thread will suffice. It sounds like the VC directly supported rulings that are very far from RAW in PFS.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I run into this, I explain that paladins (and all members of the Pathfinder Society *looks directly at the almost evil Cheliaxian types*) take an oath on their honor to uphold the three rules, Explore, Report, Cooperate. They are honor bound to work within those rules. Characters do not have to like other characters, they do not have to approve of their methods and they could be hated enemies that could want kill each other and be fully justified in doing so, but while working for the Society they are required to cooperate by that oath.
Deities are complex creatures who can see farther than characters, and would usually allow their servants to be in the presence of other people who do bad things. When you consider that Pathfinders will be the ones to encounter many great evils it seems obvious that a deity would want her servant to be in a place to deal with that evil when it arises. The Pharasman cleric should not be in any danger of needing an atonement for not immediately squashing the undead, especially given the arrangement to destroy them after. Pharasma wants that cleric to be in place so that when the big boss at the end of the season, who has avoided her judgement for to way too long gets his due, she can see it happen. There is no suspension of dispelief needed.
We have an example in the Death's Heretic novel where a priest of Pharasma was allowed to serve and represent her, even though he was going against doctrine for an extended period. She sent a servant to deal with him, she didn't suddenly change his spell list. GMs can be much more capricious than gods are, and need to remember the don't be a jerk rule as well. Paizo likes the morally ambiguous neutral ground where characters are challenged and that creates good stories. Both good and neutral-icky characters are necessary for that storytelling. We need to make PFS a place where they can coexist, even if it drives our characters (but not our players) crazy.
TL/DR: What BNW said just now.
|
|
The messageboards are the wrong place for this discussion. We don't know the full story, there may be extenuating circumstances that the OP didn't know about.
Long story short the OP should send Mike Brock an email.
There are no extenuating circumstances in PFS that would allow a GM to dictate what spells a cleric is granted by the Deity, unless they need an atonement for some reason.
There are no extenuating circumstances in PFS that would allow a GM to require an atonement because the player chose not to skirt the lines of what is and is not PvP.
|
|
What I find interesting is that these topics keep coming up on the boards, but I've never seen them at the table. I've never actually seen anyone play a necromancer.
Before they were banned, I saw an Undead Lord at Paizocon last year.
At tier 1-2, the skeleton was in full plate with a great sword and walked over everything in its path.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I began my tenure as a pathfinder as an undead lord in good standing in the church of Urgathoa. My spiritual buddy Coleg often wore the bones or skin of a dead animal, rather than a humanoid, to spare the feelings of his associates.
Then I found myself in dilemma. The Society was in conflict with a priestess of the Mother of Want over a plan she had devised to plunge great swathes of Andoran into disease and wasting. I has to choose: to stand beside my Society allies or to follow Urgathoa's priestess. I chose to be a Pathfinder first, and was stripped of my station and powers.
Charon, the Lord of Death, took me in, for reasons of his own, and has voiced no complaints as I explore, report, and cooperate.
|
|
To be fair, the question comes up more during character creation and discussion of character concepts that it does in actual play in my area. When it does, I give the speech. I am very fortunate to have a great bunch of players who avoid a lot of this behavior. Maybe when people realize that they can't grief the good guys they decide not to, but I'm not complaining.
The only necromancer in my area that sees regular play is a bones oracle who was built with getting into interesting conversations with good characters in mind. She generally tries to create undead out of non-sentient creatures or summon evil souls to give them one last chance at redemption in the service of good before being destroyed. The player understands that undead are always evil, and enjoys being creepy, but allows for and relishes the RP opportunities for playing with good characters.
|
|
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".
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. 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. 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.
Now, that being said, I do agree that it would be best to suggest first and foremost that the necromancer (in this case, but whoever is the offending party) play a more party friendly character. They can always playa Pregen, too, though in truth I kind of hate the idea of Pregens, or being forced to play one when you have your very own character.
Failing that, if there is a realistic way that the two (or more, as it is usually more than one other player) can work together, then that is probably the second best option. But if it really gets to the point where the offending character is hiding behind the no PvP rule, they have already far exceeded the rule about this is supposed to be fun for everyone, not just you unwritten rule.
If I can add, its impossible to know who your playing with through your entire career and its possible to see characters of all types. Some almost questionably evil and many different ideas of morality. If I remember right deeds for the society and factions don't count against you, which is probably for the best because you can't fit everyone.
Usually I find its best to be accepting of lots of ideas, and not to play a character and want to start fights or act against the wills and interest of other players. We come here to have fun, and part of the pathfinder's job is to cooperate with all sorts of characters. I've played with people who work against you during your missions, or GMs who tell me I should do something against another players interest, and its just not fun when that happens.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Necromancer leading to table drama... what a surprise.
When I end up having to share a table with them, it just becomes one of those things like a proctologist exam. You hope it ends fast and you dont want to talk about it after. In otherwords, you get through it and erase it from the story of your Pharasma cleric or paladin.
Paladins can explicitly work with Evil. Undead isn't excepted.
The mainline Pharasmans are opposed to Undeath and usually seek to destroy it,
but there is no rule I'm aware of that they must seek to destroy every Undead (or Undead user/creator) they run across.
(and I forget the specific reference, but I remember some Pharasmans in Osirion have a more accomodating position to some Undead)
Paladins, Clerics, or indeed any character with a specific motivation beyond 'exploring and looting'
indeed have less strong reasons to be involved with Pathfinder Society... If your character roleplaying
leads you to coming into conflict with Pathfinder rules and dynamics, then that character is no longer appropriate for PFS.
Doesn't matter if you're a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy'.
|
|
From:
adventurers’ practice of tomb robbing. . .
Taboos . . . While necromancy has many beneficial spells that allow you to care for both the dead and the living, you may not create undead, nor control them unless you do so specifically for the purpose of destroying them.
. . .
Adventuring priests avoid entering tombs for the purpose of looting, though if a tomb is known to hold undead, they accept this transgression
with the intent of dispatching abominations (though they still oppose desecrating non-undead corpses in such places).
The Pharasma article in Carrion Crown repeats exactly what Gods and Magic says about Undead. Paizo has stated that Pharasma will not allow Undead or even those tainted by Undeath as followers, including Dhampires and Sorcerers with an Undead related Bloodline.
As for the Paladin able to work with evil for the greater good, it's a huge stretch to say that working for the Pathfinders is in any way "the greater good". :) Being that they are outlawed, banned, and typically rightfully disliked in most of the world, I'm not sure a Paladin would really ever work with the Pathfinder Society, to be honest. ha ha ha