|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think PCs that are paladins, good clerics, good inquisitors, ect. should be forced to travel and work with evil undead creatures throughout an entire adventure. If there are none of those types of PCs at the table, I don't see a problem.
Actually, because your PC is a member of the Pathfinder Society, and you were grabbed by the musterer to talk with Venture Captain X, who sent the ill-assorted group of you off to "Explore! Report! Cooperate!"
If your PC is unwilling to work with any or all other members of the Pathfinder Society, maybe you should rethink your PC.
|
I don't think PCs that are paladins, good clerics, good inquisitors, ect. should be forced to travel and work with evil undead creatures throughout an entire adventure. If there are none of those types of PCs at the table, I don't see a problem.Actually, because your PC is a member of the Pathfinder Society, and you were grabbed by the musterer to talk with Venture Captain X, who sent the ill-assorted group of you off to "Explore! Report! Cooperate!"
If your PC is unwilling to work with any or all other members of the Pathfinder Society, maybe you should rethink your PC.
Unfortunately to a lot of people, that means "don't play a paladin" because either they can't see a paladin hanging out with those people or they're worried the dm is going to banhammer them for hanging out with those people.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since this is a PFS specific question, the PFS specific rule takes precedence: PFS FAQ.
So no, despite what a certain vocal subset of the posters love to argue, there is nothing wrong with casting Animate Dead in a PFS scenario and you will not suffer an alignment infraction provided your spellcaster hasn't also multiclassed into Paladin or is a Cleric of Pharasma. Playing a true neutral wizard has it's benefits.
As to why Undead lord is not legal, I suspect that has more to do with the fact that with an archetype choice a cleric gets a highly customizable permanent companion that increases in effectiveness with their cleric level rather than the fact that it is undead. Look closer at Corpse Companion.
Assume you're playing an 8th level cleric. You then have an 8 HD creature fighting with you that is immune to mind effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, etc. What's more, that 8HD creature can be just about any creature that has a skeletal system and is 8HD or less. What Druid animal companion can do that? Now, take it a step further. If you're willing to drop it down to a 4HD creature it can become a flaming version of the same. And if you can't decide, you can switch out your companion between scenarios at no actual cost beyond 1 standard action and an 8 hour ritual.
I suspect the book keeping for this is also a reason Undead lord is not PFS legal when one scenario the player could be using a Skeleton Dire Ape as their Corpse Companion the next they're using a Bloody Burning Goblin and then the following game they turn it into a Plague Zombie Worg. All available options for an Undead Lord.
Separate the undead aspect from the equation and it seems much clearer why Undead Lord is not PFS legal.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
Unfortunately to a lot of people, that means "don't play a paladin" because either they can't see a paladin hanging out with those people or they're worried the dm is going to banhammer them for hanging out with those people.I don't think PCs that are paladins, good clerics, good inquisitors, ect. should be forced to travel and work with evil undead creatures throughout an entire adventure. If there are none of those types of PCs at the table, I don't see a problem.Actually, because your PC is a member of the Pathfinder Society, and you were grabbed by the musterer to talk with Venture Captain X, who sent the ill-assorted group of you off to "Explore! Report! Cooperate!"
If your PC is unwilling to work with any or all other members of the Pathfinder Society, maybe you should rethink your PC.
All GM´s have to stick to the rules. As long as the Paladin is not casting the spell, there is no problem. There was the same discussion about infernal healing and poison.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the Undead Lord Archetype, and wish it be reintroduced into normal PFS play, possibly with a restriction or something similar to balance game play if that is the issue which caused it to be removed. Everyone wants a cleric in the party, but the Cleric doesn't want only to be the 'Mana Battery of Healing'.
|
|
I like the Undead Lord Archetype, and wish it be reintroduced into normal PFS play, possibly with a restriction or something similar to balance game play if that is the issue which caused it to be removed. Everyone wants a cleric in the party, but the Cleric doesn't want only to be the 'Mana Battery of Healing'.
Unfortunately, it wasn't due to any sort of game balance issue, it was world canon that caused the Undead Lord to go away.
Golarion just doesn't support Undead Lords in the Pathfinder Society, apparently.
|
All GM´s have to stick to the rules. As long as the Paladin is not casting the spell, there is no problem. There was the same discussion about infernal healing and poison.Unfortunately to a lot of people, that means "don't play a paladin" because either they can't see a paladin hanging out with those people or they're worried the dm is going to banhammer them for hanging out with those people.I don't think PCs that are paladins, good clerics, good inquisitors, ect. should be forced to travel and work with evil undead creatures throughout an entire adventure. If there are none of those types of PCs at the table, I don't see a problem.Actually, because your PC is a member of the Pathfinder Society, and you were grabbed by the musterer to talk with Venture Captain X, who sent the ill-assorted group of you off to "Explore! Report! Cooperate!"
If your PC is unwilling to work with any or all other members of the Pathfinder Society, maybe you should rethink your PC.
Not true. Paladins, by virtue of the class itself are required to destroy Undead because they are evil. Likewise it is breaking a taboo for Clerics of Sarenrae, and a Major taboo for Cleric of Pharasma to not destroy an Undead basically on sight (they can use the undead to destroy other undead, but them must destroy the one they used immediately afterwards). That means that a good DM should be first warning their characters about this, and if they just shrug and say "I'm a Pathfinder, I need to put my faith and philosophy aside and cooperate no matter what." then by all rights they should be falling Paladins/Clerics.
In my opinion, you should also be considering the character Animating Undead to be committing PvP for putting other characters into that sort of position, I think. Not letting them hide behind that PFS rule when it suites them. It works both ways, and the person using Animate Dead (or whatever) has just as much responsibility to fully cooperate and not be a jerk to everyone else, and that might just mean that they don't raise any undead while playing in a given party. If that's all they can meaningfully do, well, they probably don't belong in the PFS organization.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
Right Beckett.
I wouldn´t tell anyone of this, because that is what you buy a phylactery of faithfullness for i believe.
I would tell and mark on the chronicle though that there were infractions of their faith. Letting them fall for one such thing and needing atonement without prior knowledge or warning seems harsh. Also there are lesser and greater infractions.
On the same side, one should note a lot of stuff about alignment then though and note that too, not only with Paladins etc.
I bet a lot of players would eventually loose their characters, because all that killing without negotioations etc is deep on the evil side often.
Even for neutral characters. Killing without need is evil.
On the other hand, if something is legal by PFS law, i can´t keep a player from playing that. Punishing the others for that players choices would feel jerkish for me and probably lead into the others kind of punishing that player then somehow.
But since that player didn´t do anything wrong, it´s thin ice and a complicated area, where one can make more things wrong and unjust than good.
But i agree, animate dead (which creates an undead companion) is kind of a frontier case in PFS. If you summon some skeletons though for a fight, that´s another thing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just had a player ask me the question yesterday if he was able to animate dead in PFS. I told him that I thought it was not considered evil though he needed to be careful if he was sitting at a table with a paladin.
So, just to clarify, is it legal for him to control undead during a scenario?
|
So, just to clarify, is it legal for him to control undead during a scenario?
There is currently nothing in the rules preventing him from casting animate dead or control undead.
Doing so sometimes gets antagonized because of a myriad of reasons already discussed in this thread. Read above for all of them. At the end of the day, I would just advise your player to be reasonable and prudent with his undead. He should realize that for obvious reasons his undead will not be welcome everywhere and by everyone. If he is OK with that, then he should be fine.
Being irresponsible with undead is based on the player, not the game.
If all the paladins and clerics would just stop going on and on about their gods and how awful undead are and just be quietly angry about it... oh wait, thats just how my druids handle these things
|
|
Not true. Paladins, by virtue of the class itself are required to destroy Undead because they are evil.I can cite at least one Golarion-specific LG undead. In a very recent mod.
Sure. I know of a few, and they are intentionally extremely rare exceptions. But that doesn't change the fact that most good Clerics and Paladins will still have issues with them, and by all rights of the way that their classes function (falling if they do not act according to their faith, <which is established>). That's also a bit different than the more player vs player, and (not sure what specific example you refer to), I am not sure it will come up in PFS. All the other examples I know of (for now) are not PFS legal, and PFS has had scenarios where the entire point is to show that being turned into an Undead will 100% turn people to evil.
On the other hand, if something is legal by PFS law, i can´t keep a player from playing that. Punishing the others for that players choices would feel jerkish for me and probably lead into the others kind of punishing that player then somehow.
But since that player didn´t do anything wrong, it´s thin ice and a complicated area, where one can make more things wrong and unjust than good.
But i agree, animate dead (which creates an undead companion) is kind of a frontier case in PFS. If you summon some skeletons though for a fight, that´s another thing.
While I partially agree, you also have to remember that playing a Good aligned Cleric (and that Sarenrae and Pharasma are very popular choices for players, completely legal as well, and very prominent faiths in the setting) and playing a Paladin are also just as legal and common options. I don't mean this as an accusation directed at you, but how is "punishing the others for that players choices" for the Cleric/Paladin any different than it is for the necromancer? It seems like the necromancer jut gets to hide behind the don't be a jerk/no PvP/"but that's what my character would do" when it should be a absolute two-way street. The reason I favor the Paladins/Clerics in this case is because they actually have the risk of loosing a significant portion of their abilities (and permanently or at a very high cost), while the person that is playing the one to raise Undead minions has nothing really to loose by not doing that, (unless that is their only trick for whatever reason). Ideally, I would hope that one party or the other could come to some terms that works well for everyone, or that one of the parties will play a different character that does work well. It's also not just Clerics & Paladins that have issues with raising Undead. Most general people, especially good ones, but some neutral ones as well, Druids, and others might also have an issue with it, though they do not tend to have mechanical repercussions for inaction or actions involved with them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not true. Paladins, by virtue of the class itself are required to destroy Undead because they are evil. In my opinion, you should also be considering the character Animating Undead to be committing PvP for putting other characters into that sort of position
This is absolutely the worst way you can resolve this for pfs.
Controlling or even making undead is a legal character choice. You cannot put a back door ban on it by declaring it PVP because you decide to read the paladin rules in the harshest way possible.
You cannot blame the paladin for not beating up the necromancer or his puppets because the no PVP rules prevent him from doing so. Nor can you blame him for not having his character walk because that means his player doesn't get to play.
While in a home game I would definitely say the same thing you are, for PFS I"m going to read the cannonically not evil necromancer and his evil spawn as the lesser of two evils she's out to defeat. (and assume that the society either mass atones its paladins for their rampant unlawful behavior or that the association doesn't last long enough to require and atonement)
|
|
Not true. Paladins, by virtue of the class itself are required to destroy Undead because they are evil. In my opinion, you should also be considering the character Animating Undead to be committing PvP for putting other characters into that sort of positionThis is absolutely the worst way you can resolve this for pfs.
Controlling or even making undead is a legal character choice. You cannot put a back door ban on it by declaring it PVP because you decide to read the paladin rules in the harshest way possible.
You cannot blame the paladin for not beating up the necromancer or his puppets because the no PVP rules prevent him from doing so. Nor can you blame him for not having his character walk because that means his player doesn't get to play.
I'm not sure I agree with you on that one. Playing a Paladin is also a legal option for PFS play. Playing a Cleric of good and anti Undead deities is likewise also a legal option, and those classes come with a built in mechanical restriction for their behavior. Alignment in Pathfinder is absolute, not objective. It does not matter whatsoever what your character believes about something. Creating Undead is evil, period, for example. It doesn't matter in any way if your character believes that they are just giving grandma one last chance to live and fight on, it's still evil. An individual's intentions might lighten or push it even further to evil, but that does not negate that the act itself is evil, and will never change it from being evil, no matter how good the outcome or intention was.
I also just want to point out that if you read further, what I do suggest is that a.) the two parties (and I say that because I personally see much more good/clerics/paladins/etc that would have an issue with a player raising undead than I do players raising undead in PFS) find some way to work it out in and out of game that does not involve either 1.) one killing the other or 2.) showing favoritism towards one (generally the necromancer type) while basically telling the others to shut up and deal with it, and forget about their character's motivation or possible issues with their faith/class features. And b.) is that is not reasonably possible than for one of the two parties to play a different character, (or even as much as I hate them, a pregen if needed).
Here is an example (and I do mean literally an example), that might help clarify exactly what I mean. HERE is my main PFS character, and one of their main focuses is in channeling to harm undead and evil outsiders. I have devoted a lot of resources into that. It could really handicap me if I played in a game where another player had undead, and probably would not be fun, as either I or they would basically need to not use our abilities, or find some way to stay far apart from each other which might be a death sentence in PFS. So, why, in your (general you) opinion, is it ok for the other character to hide behind the No PvP/Don't be a Jerk/"it's what my character would do" rules and guidelines, but when I would/could do the exact same thing it's wrong? Now consider that we both have 100% legal builds and options.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, you should also be considering the character Animating Undead to be committing PvP for putting other characters into that sort of position
The day I see this in the wild is the day that, no matter what character I wind up playing, I watch the Paladin like a hawk and demand an atonement for every single illegal action. If you want to shut down a legal option because some other class has a problem with it, that class had damn sure better live up to the requirements it's setting out.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of funny how everyone keeps going back to the paladin, and/or putting things like this right next to any and all minor transgressions like they are similar.
:)
Either the Paladin code is unwaveringly strict, or it isn't.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
If that's interpreted as "suffer not a zombie to lurch," then that means you also can't break the law to acquire an artifact for the Society. Hell, just entering Irrisen is a crime for a Pathfinder.
If, however, we want to see some flexibility--"I don't think Baba Yaga is a legitimate authority, and I'm serving the greater good by retrieving this artifact"--then I don't see how "I'll let this zombie punch things on my behalf until it is no longer under my direct supervision, at which point I will see it put down" is problematic.
|
There will be table variation with GMs and table variation with players. I always let the players hash it out first and only step in when needed (if they are both being stubborn, one/both is getting visibly frustrated, etc). I have found in my experience that for some strange reason, the players who work things out between themselves actually commit their characters towards protecting each other. It's kind of amusing :)
|
|
Either the Paladin code is unwaveringly strict, or it isn't.
As opposed to a Cleric whose deity does have established rules and taboos against undead and dealing with them.
For example, Sarenrae places Undead in the irredeemable evil category that should only be destroyed. Pharasma likewise allows them to be controlled, but only for the purpose of destroying them or other undead, and stipulates that they must be immediately destroyed thereafter. Neither of these have the Paladin's exception of "it's ok if it's for the greater undefined good", but I think it would be a very hard case to argue that the Pathfinder's in game goals would fit into the "greater good", as they (the goals and the organization) are notably neutral and bordering on evil.
Taboos: If you see an opportunity to right a wrong and fail to take it, you have sinned against Iomedae and must perform a penance that fixes the original situation. If that’s not possible, you must find three others like it and make those right instead. You must stand
for justice, and the only exception is if you are playing a longer game that will have far greater benefits when it comes to fruition. Should you fail in this, you may lose traits and class abilities related to your faith until you complete your penance.
Other Faiths: Like your goddess, you are open and friendly with worshipers of other faiths—even many of the evil ones. Unless someone has shown himself to be irretrievably evil, your faith demands that you treat him with the kindness you would show to anyone who had lost his way. Redemption is rarely a swift process, and your faith demands the patience to hold your temper and help others to walk the righteous path. Only the followers of Rovagug are denied a chance at salvation, for to entertain the Rough Beast is to display a total rejection of righteousness.
Other Faiths: As a follower of Pharasma, you detest Urgathoa, Orcus, and all those who exult in undeath, for they represent both a corruption of natural existence and a vile bending of the will of Pharasma. Otherwise, you are free to make alliances and enmities with whomever you will, just as the Lady of Graves works with all the gods to guide mortal souls into their realms. Pharasmin priests are renowned for their impartial natures, and regularly minister to both sides in a given conflict, caring first and foremost for the proper treatment of the dead and the newborn.
Taboos:The taboos of the faith are largely local in nature, but there are a few that remain constant across the faith. As her follower, you are forbidden to kill her psychopomps, such as whippoorwills and scarabs, for they are the goddess’s eyes and ears. While the goddess has no opinions regarding contraception, you may not partake in the abortion of unborn babies, for to do so is to cut short the destiny of a child before it has had a chance to make its own. 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.
The Voices of the Spire: The Voices of the Spire are a militant wing of the Pharasmin priesthood devoted exclusively to the total destruction of undead and those who harbor them. Composed primarily of inquisitors, rangers with favored enemy (undead), and clerics, the group does not bother with other Pharasmin concerns such as ministering to the dead or acting as midwives, believing that the greatest thing one can do in Pharasma’s name is remove those creatures that defy her authority. The group has chapter houses in many countries, but is strongest in Ustalav, Osirion, and Quantium, with the chapter house in the latter being a huge fortress from which the group plans raids against the undead nation of Geb. These sanctuaries hide texts about the most effective defenses and weapons against various forms of undead, as well as censuses about known sentient undead in the area and their habits. They pay well for information on new undead or changes in existing patterns, but the locations of their strongholds are well-kept secrets. Their undead enemies are powerful and dangerous, and so to find members, you must know where to look and how to ask. Many of the Voices, as they call themselves, carry badges to protect against their souls being torn away by the undead should they be abducted by their foes. Unfortunately, these badges work by killing the bearers if they’re ever seriously damaged by level-draining undead, thus sending the owners directly to their rewards in the Boneyard.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As opposed to a Cleric whose deity does have established rules and taboos against undead and dealing with them.
For example, Sarenrae places Undead in the irredeemable evil category that should only be destroyed. Pharasma likewise allows them to be controlled, but only for the purpose of destroying them or other undead, and stipulates that they must be immediately destroyed thereafter. Neither of these have the Paladin's exception of "it's ok if it's for the greater undefined good", but I think it would be a very hard case to argue that the Pathfinder's in game goals would fit into the "greater good", as they (the goals and the organization) are notably neutral and bordering on evil.
Bolding mine, because it illustrates my question:
Why privilege the people who deliberately play an intolerant character (in a neutral-tending-toward-evil organization, mind) over the tolerant character whose tactics are very much in alignment (NPI) with that same neutral-tending-toward-evil organization?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What it really comes down to is one player wanting to use a <legal> option that other players and also their characters by all rights might have an issue with, and also whose characters might easily be required to act against said character in order to not both break their concept and mechanically take a massive penalty (and a costly one), just so that the one player can force their character on everyone else.
Because, one option completely invalidates a character, while the other can be resolved with roleplaying.
Let's take some extreme examples. Player 1 wants to play a necromancer wizard who animates the dead. Player 2 wants to play an inquisitor of Pharasma who hates undead.
In my opinion, Player 2 should be the one who compromises and comes up with a reason why his inquisitor would work with such a wizard. Even if that reason is only "the PFS made me". If you ask Player 1 to come along but don't use any of his abilities, then you are gimping that player in pretty much all ways: both crunch and fluff basically.
Regardless of my opinion above, I still don't see why we can't all just be adults about this. If P1 has a character with a problem against undead, and P2 wants to bring a necro wizard, then those two players SHOULD talk it out before hand and figure out how that is solved. Maybe the solution is that the undead hater gets to let the wizard create his undead for the duration of the scenario, and then he gets to destroy them at the end. How hard is that?
And if any GM deems that such a compromise is "violating a code" and wants to make you loose powers, they need to go re-read rule #1
|
|
Because, one option completely invalidates a character, while the other can be resolved with roleplaying.
Let's take some extreme examples. Player 1 wants to play a necromancer wizard who animates the dead. Player 2 wants to play an inquisitor of Pharasma who hates undead.
Wait, Payer 2 is invalidating Player 1, but Player 1 is not at all invalidating Player 2? Huh? Yah, not sure that logic holds any water, since both are perfectly legal options, and Player 2 is probably a lot more inline with the established setting. Necromancy and specifically raising undead is not a socially or morally acceptable practice in the setting save for a few specific locations.
In my opinion, Player 2 should be the one who compromises and comes up with a reason why his inquisitor would work with such a wizard. Even if that reason is only "the PFS made me". If you ask Player 1 to come along but don't use any of his abilities, then you are gimping that player in pretty much all ways: both crunch and fluff basically.
Whereas the reverse is somehow not true? Again, pointing to my character example above, having a character that relied on undead minions (even outside of any RP and moral/alignment issues) would severely gimp my character in a lot of ways if I can't use my abilities to destroy undead without fear of destroying theirs?
Regardless of my opinion above, I still don't see why we can't all just be adults about this. If P1 has a character with a problem against undead, and P2 wants to bring a necro wizard, then those two players SHOULD talk it out before hand and figure out how that is solved. Maybe the solution is that the undead hater gets to let the wizard create his undead for the duration of the scenario, and then he gets to destroy them at the end. How hard is that?
And if any GM deems that such a compromise is "violating a code" and wants to make you loose powers, they need to go re-read rule #1
Which Rule #1 are you referring to? The one that PFSOP is set in Golarion and unless otherwise called out uses all the Core rules? The Rule 0? Core Assumption? No PvP/No Bullying other Players? Not trying to be snarky, but not sure what you mean here.
As opposed to a Cleric whose deity does have established rules and taboos against undead and dealing with them.
For example, Sarenrae places Undead in the irredeemable evil category that should only be destroyed. Pharasma likewise allows them to be controlled, but only for the purpose of destroying them or other undead, and stipulates that they must be immediately destroyed thereafter. Neither of these have the Paladin's exception of "it's ok if it's for the greater undefined good", but I think it would be a very hard case to argue that the Pathfinder's in game goals would fit into the "greater good", as they (the goals and the organization) are notably neutral and bordering on evil.
Bolding mine, because it illustrates my question:
Why privilege the people who deliberately play an intolerant character (in a neutral-tending-toward-evil organization, mind) over the tolerant character whose tactics are very much in alignment (NPI) with that same neutral-tending-toward-evil organization?
It's not privileging them, it's removing the privilege to be a jerk from the other player, basically making it fair and balanced both ways like it should be. Also remember that Paizo/PFS is starting to head in a direction to change and remove that stigma from the in-game organization, both with including things like the Silver Crusade, updating the story in ways like the players trying to gain allies and aid in the Worldwound, and starting to show ramifications for past political issues that the PFS organization and it's agents have done to cause harm such as closing off Cheliax and showing that Pathfinders are not welcome heroes in places like Ustalav. Things are achangin'.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I agree with you on that one. Playing a Paladin is also a legal option for PFS play. Playing a Cleric of good and anti Undead deities is likewise also a legal option, and those classes come with a built in mechanical restriction for their behavior
Ok, stop that. I didn't say you can't play the paladin or the undead hating cleric.
Didn't say it, didn't hint at it, didn't imply it.
What I said was that YOU, the person, the dm, not the rules, are the one creating the situation where the paladin and the necromancer can't play their characters at the same table. If someone has to walk or play a pre gen (equally horrible fates IMO) that's entirely your fault for using the harshest possible interpretation of the rules.
|
|
@ BNW: ? Um, no, I said that the best option is to find a way to compromise so tat everyone has fun. Multiple times in fact.
If that fails, or then I'm suggesting the Necromancer has no more right or validation to be a jerk than the Paladin or Cleric or whoever does. That's pretty much it.
But just showing up to play your legal character isn't being a jerk.
I agree, and I'm not trying to imply that it is. Just that it goes both ways.
|
|
My Cleric of Pharasma has versatile channelling (TN) and typically uses neg energy to harm her foes (Calling them to the Boneyard she calls it) and she does have Control Undead.
Explicity to GAIN control of the undead and turn them against necromancers and to assist in forcing them to accept their 'final rest'. She has used Control Undead TWICE since getting it and basically its :'Attack your fellow undead' and followed by 'Kneel here so my friend with the greatsword can ease you towards your long denied rest'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Multiple spoilers
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
It's established that followers of Pharasma do not work with or allow Undead
Iomedae's likewise does not allow Undead and evil to exist when they can do something about it
Sarenrae's faith likewise places Undead into the destroy on sight beyond redemption/negotiation category
...
None of the quotes that you have above state that undead have to be destroyed immediately.
Pharasma's entry doesn't state that undead have to be destroyed on sight - Pharasma clerics will not create undead and will usualy shy from controlling them - but the entry does not state that they have to destroy them on sight. Once the mission is completed, then making sure that the undead are destroyed should be sufficient.
Please note that the Voices of the Spire militant wing of the Church of Pharasma and does not represent the Churce as a whole.
Iomedae's entry likewise does not state that undead have to be destroyed on sight. The word "stamp out evil and injustice" is fairly broad - this does not allow a worshipper of Iomedae to use detect evil as a license to kill. Even the taboo allows some room to suffer having undead present for the mission "if you are playing a longer game", to me, means that you can put up with the undead until the mission is done, then make sure that the undead are destroyed.
Even Sarenrae doesn't have a kill on sight command. "They understand that undead, mindless beasts, and fiends are essentially beyond redemption and don’t bother wasting words on such creatures". To me, this means that they normally will not even bother trying to redeem the listed creatures, so that main facet of their faith doesn't usually apply when dealing with the listed creatures. However, there are times that fiends have been redeemed, and that there are good aligned undead. Once again, as long as the undead are destroyed at the end of the mission, worshipers of Sarenrae should be fine.
I am not saying that the worshippers of the above gods would be happy to work with the undead, but that they can do so for a short while without suffering any repercussions for doing so. it would seem that the creators of Golarion feel the same way, as they have allowed create undead and such to be in play since the start of PFS
So, with all of that, I am not seeing any "kill/destory" on sight requirements towards undead, so I can see worshippers of Pharasma, Sarenrae and Iomedae suffering the presence of undead for the lenght of the mission. While complaining the whole time most likely, but doing so.
In other words, when you create a PC for PFS, you need to keep in mind that you may be playing beside "x" type of PC and their minions (undead, campanions, etc) and arrange it so that your character can tolerate them for the length of the mission. That is part of your responsibility as a player.
If a GM states that my good aligned character needs an attonement because they didn't immediately destroy another PC's undead - I will try and talk them out of it, and if need be run it up the chain of command to Mike.
|
|
But just showing up to play your legal character isn't being a jerk.I agree, and I'm not trying to imply that it is. Just that it goes both ways.
No, it doesn't. Showing up to play your legal character and trying to prevent other people from playing their legal character, with their legal options, is being a jerk.
|
|
I have found in my experience, that a lot of players will and do create characters that really do not belong in the Society due to how they are.
At my lodge we have a Barbarian whose sole purpose for existence is killing, and hunting people down who sees as "taboo". This character has no place in the society as to what the society values, I have seen a paladin whose purpose is to fight in the society to hunt down evil and smite them away, with no interest in finding out WHY they are that way. Again, this character does not belong in Society.
The problem is that, the Society as a whole is neutral and values knowledge and research more than anything else, and that extremes do not fit at all. A necromancer bent on undead domination for his own personal means towards power along with the Paladin of Sarenrea bent on the elimination of all evil, do not fit. But those people and characters exist, and they are legal. Arguing over whats moral and what is not is somewhat moot since it all comes down to legality, what is important is how it is dealt with in an adequate and QUICK manner that keeps both parties happy.
So how do we make them work on the same table, while keeping both players happy?
Luckily at my lodge, again we just deal with kill crazy fighters and barbarians. As a GM I try to poke them into a character through RP experiences in scenarios to try and shape a character that they enjoy and has a bit more thought to it for why they are there as a society agent. I provide a means to change.
I do not look forward to the day when I get a necromancer and inquisitor of Pharasma sitting at the same table because I have no idea what the best route to go through that is.
|
|
I don't think PCs that are paladins, good clerics, good inquisitors, ect. should be forced to travel and work with evil undead creatures throughout an entire adventure. If there are none of those types of PCs at the table, I don't see a problem.
I play paldens at times and I would kill evile undead how ever a shadow dacncer gets a shadow to help out in combat
|
|
@ BNW: ? Um, no, I said that the best option is to find a way to compromise so tat everyone has fun. Multiple times in fact.
But you want that compromise to be between the paladin and the necromancer, instead of between the paladin the necromancer and the dm. The rules aren't so harshly written that the only one true way to interpret them is -Slay his undead now or fall!-. If you move from YOUR position a little they can both be at the table.
|
|
No, it doesn't. Showing up to play your legal character and trying to prevent other people from playing their legal character, with their legal options, is being a jerk.But just showing up to play your legal character isn't being a jerk.I agree, and I'm not trying to imply that it is. Just that it goes both ways.
Not only that, but if your character, while legal, is predicated on non-cooperation with a certain subset of also legal characters I would question whether or not it was an appropriate character concept for PFS given that the first rule of the campaign is literally Cooperate.
In game I have to imagine that lots of paladins and particularly fanatical clerics are fired by the Decemivirate for intransigence. Why would your super-fanatic paladin even be a pathfinder when they could join the Knights of Ozem and have endless numbers of undead to massacre?
If you see an opportunity to right a wrong and fail to take it, you have sinned against Iomedae and must perform a penance that fixes the original situation. If that’s not possible, you must find three others like it and make those right instead.
Also Iomedae allows threefold penance for your sins of omission. Working with a necromancer or evil-outsider summoner is an excellent example of the kind of thing that you wouldn't fall for immediately but in your arbitrary down time between adventures you can say that you went out and killed three other necromancers to make up for the one you stayed quiet about. In fact I suspect that the writers added this passage specifically to give clerics and paladins an out to compromise on the kind of party composition arguments that we are having in this thread.
|
|
Lets put aside for a moment the undead, how exactly should your paladin or cleric then respond to say my warpriest of zon-kuthon? Pain is idealized as her hedonistic delight. She worships a lawful evil entity but treats pain in a neutral manner as neither good nor evil. Thus she is lawful neutral.
Another example being how should the paladins treat Cheliaxian who worship fiends? And deploys divine and arcane magic empowered by them. What happens when they invoke fiends to the table with planar ally or summon monster?
The issue is really something beyond the undead. How can such paladins and clerics work with those committed to a grey balance of neutrality who deploy both good and evil, and how can they work with individuals who are empowered by evil by live neutral lives?
As someone who plays both sides of the fence, it makes for fun roleplay reason and a good reason to avoid the generic backstory. When we play characters who are empowered by good to such an extreme we must figure out why would they intentionally align with a neutral organization that tolerates good and those empowered by evil. Likewise when we play a neutral character, who is empowered by evil, we must choose to figure out how do we respond to the forces of goodness. These questions when you are playing anything but neutral need to be answered before setting out into the field. Work out your backstory.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
A good thing there is to refrain from the black and white view a bit.
Some undead might as well be someones ancestors called for aid, or fallen foes made to repay their sins etc. Not that evil.
Unfortunately i have to say i find the paladins played in such a way, or rather their players, disruptive much more often. This extends to all characters played in such a fashion. It´s like in real life, someone that stubborn and narrow-minded would be shunned and avoided. They might also bring great evil and damage, even if having a good purpose. Just look at the NSA and their mindset.
On the other hand personaly i wouldn´t mind banning undead and their creation from the campaign, because it is kind of evil. Then again this would be quite restrictive, lots of fans would be sad and we would still have eidolons and alchemists.
|
|
A good thing there is to refrain from the black and white view a bit.
Some undead might as well be someones ancestors called for aid, or fallen foes made to repay their sins etc. Not that evil.
If Good Clerics could do that, I'd be all for it. I've always wanted to play a holy champion that calls on the honored dead to heed the call or righteous battle once more, calling their spirits back into their bones so they can rise and fight the good fight and protect the still living. But that's the thing. You can't do that in PFS, because it's evil, and Good Clerics can not cast Evil spells. Now if that changed, I'd be right there with you on that.
Unfortunately i have to say i find the paladins played in such a way, or rather their players, disruptive much more often. This extends to all characters played in such a fashion. It´s like in real life, someone that stubborn and narrow-minded would be shunned and avoided. They might also bring great evil and damage, even if having a good purpose. Just look at the NSA and their mindset.
On the other hand personaly i wouldn´t mind banning undead and their creation from the campaign, because it is kind of evil. Then again this would be quite restrictive, lots of fans would be sad and we would still have eidolons and alchemists.
That's a possibility for the next Season's Guide. Or even removing the ruling about Evil Spells being ok, as it was based on a rule that doesn't exist in PFS anymore about doing evil for the Faction Heads and those NPC's taking the Alignment hit. But we will have to wait and see.
I really don't think it will be all that bad, honestly. There was a lot of "the sky is falling", but I don't see it really affecting too many characters, and no more that any other class/archtype being banned does. It would probably be the best thing for the campaign as a whole I think. That would really be a non-black and white, shades of grey sort of deal, and would make things interesting.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly when two good roleplayers meet and they are dipolar it is usualyl awesome.
I love to have PCs the exact opposite of my PC. I had my CN gnome with a hell knight. We squabbled over everything. It was lots of fun. He wrote me a citation, I ate it. I was ordered to keep watch I woke some else up and took a nap. It was fun and it defines your character.
In literature they call it a foil. Now if you wanna be lawfull stupid or toe the evil go ahead but realize that person what to have fun too. You will get most of your fun with the table and not by yourself.
|
It seems to me the DEVS have said that there is to no PC's of Evil alignment. Practicing necromancy is an evil act, all spells that deal with controlling and raising/creating undead have an evil descriptor and if you continually cast them it will shift your alignment to one of the evil alignment types and render your character non playable in PFS. Necromancers do not qualify for atonement as they are willingly committing evil acts when they cast their spells.
Some classes just do not work well in PFS because of how the DEVS want the Society to work. IMO some people try to shoehorn characters who are evil IE Necromancers or just want to play evil typed characters into the society and think other players should adapt to their way of playing by not playing Paladins or good clerics is IMO selfish. One of my Characters is a Paladin of Iomedae with the Undead Destroyer archtype and I have never had any problems with any PC that I have run with nor ever had to switch him out and he has 2 more scenarios to go for retirement.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me the DEVS have said that there is to no PC's of Evil alignment. Practicing necromancy is an evil act, all spells that deal with controlling and raising/creating undead have an evil descriptor and if you continually cast them it will shift your alignment to one of the evil alignment types and render your character non playable in PFS. Necromancers do not qualify for atonement as they are willingly committing evil acts when they cast their spells.
In Pathfinder Society, casting spells with the "evil" descriptor does not affect your alignment.
|
|
But some of us WANT to walk the line between the light (good) and the darkness (evil). One of my characters, Moonstruck Rhythms, is a lunar oracle who I have tried to model after the GREY JEDI in Star Wars . She walks both sides of the fence. The darkness of the night must be balanced out with the light of the day. For her this is exemplified in the manifestation of the moon, which is what her mystery is in. She commits both good and evil acts. She wields the power of the light as well as the power of the darkness. Not all who use dark powers are evil. Not all who wield powers of goodness are good. There are some of us who choose to walk the line.
|
|
It seems to me the DEVS have said that there is to no PC's of Evil alignment.
Yes
Practicing necromancy is an evil act
Yes
all spells that deal with controlling and raising/creating undead have an evil descriptor
No/yes
control undead for example.
and if you continually cast them it will shift your alignment to one of the evil alignment types and render your character non playable in PFS.
No. It will not.
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues.- Mike brock
IMO some people try to shoehorn characters who are evil IE Necromancers or just want to play evil typed characters into the society and think other players should adapt to their way of playing by not playing Paladins or good clerics is IMO selfish.
That would cut both ways equally... except look at what the society is.
Some classes just do not work well in PFS because of how the DEVS want the Society to work.
You mean paladins in a campaign based around showing up in far flung exotic locals where pathfinders are banned (illegal immigration), killing the people who currently have a macguffin (murder) , taking it (theft), and then bringing it back to absolom without paying taxes on it (smuggling)
If someone doesn't fit here.. its not the necromancer.
|
|
There is currently nothing in the rules preventing him from casting animate dead or control undead.
Doing so sometimes gets antagonized because of a myriad of reasons already discussed in this thread. Read above for all of them. At the end of the day, I would just advise your player to be reasonable and prudent with his undead. He should realize that for obvious reasons his undead will not be welcome everywhere and by everyone. If he is OK with that, then he should be fine.
Being irresponsible with undead is based on the player, not the game.
Thank you much. I have expressed this to him but will be sure to do so again since he really wants to be an undead controlling wizard.
|
|
Ladies and Gentlemen, perhaps we are getting just a little too focused on the re-animating side of Necromancy. I've played a necomancer in PFS for about 3 1/2 years now and somehow managed to avoid reanimating the dead. Controlling existing undead and then getting the party to destroy them? Check! The school of Necromancy is more than just a couple of Animate Dead spells, I'd urge you to go and check them out.
That being said one of the tenets of PFS is co-operate, thus you should always be prepared to compromise. When you sit down at a table your characters are there to get on with a job, any potential conflicts in operating procedure should be hashed out at the start. Anti-undead characters at the table? Perhaps you should rein in that urge to make the dead walk. On the flip side perhaps those same undead crusher shouldn't complain about you controlling some of the undead you might find on your way (perhaps with the agreement that they are destroyed afterwards).
Compromise, chaps and chapettes, it isn't such a bad thing.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Augment Summoning Feat covers Animate Dead
dead body of some big nasty and just re-animating it at the start of any given session?
Animate Dead doesn't contain the word "summon" in it's name.
Destroyed undead can't be antimated, so you need to argue that the end of the module doesn't destroy the undead.
It is best to avoid builds that require compelling evidence to prove it is rules legal. Just build a character with little or no table variance, and you will be much happier.
Your post avoids the real elephant in the room:
"an onyx gem worth at least 25 gp per Hit Die of the undead"
Which means at high level the cost can be as much as 600 gp per undead per module.
|
|
Why was the rule changed from PF Core rules on casting spells with an evil descriptor for PFS being an alignment infraction?
This was not in PFS but in a standard campaign of council of thieves. I had an Inquisitor of Asmodeus that started the game as lawful nutural and by casting Infernal Healing at every opportunity began his slide to lawful evil. {this was in a council of thieves game] Culminating in entering nto an infernal Pact with his patron with his patron an becoming a Devil in his own right. This was a player decision.
IT seems to me that a large number of players want their actions to have no consequences.
BNW to my knowledge there are only 2 or 3 countries in the inner sea that ban or restrict religion or practitioners there of. 2 of the countires just ban conversions or preaching if you are a cleric or paladin just don't do the proscribed acts and you will be OK.
Alot of Mcguffins are evil or used for evil purposes so how is removing
them from the world wrong or evil.
There are a few scenarios that I had to avoid with my Paladin PC's the one to GEB and a few others. Just try to play your paladins good and virtuous and you will not have a problem.