Personally, if I wanted to play an unrestricted game, I'd play an Aspis Consortium Campaign. And the reality is, that without restrictions (moral, alignment, feat, spell, etc...), Pathfinder Society is the Aspis Consortium.
Well... If you want to put it that way wouldn't it make more sense to be a good aligned faction doing good things instead of a morally dubious one? The society isn't exactly the most moral one around.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the only thing that has ever caused me to contemplate quitting is the way lawful good types seem to get priority. It's one thing I never could stomach; that for some reason a lot of the lawful good you'll encounter are able to dictate a fair bit of what a party does. Splitting the party is bad, and going into battle with a split party is worse. But there are many occasions where I have observed lawful good types abstaining from combat on moral grounds, even in situations where it was unavoidable from the start.
Now bearing all that in mind, the game does still need limitations. Imposing limitations based purely on the fact that some servants of X deity, or paladin XY over here are unwilling to tolerate use of non-sentient undead as tools (after which they are sent to rest)seems like a rather poor choice. One must sometimes commit acts of evil to serve the greater good, after all. Blood transcription was one ability that allowed agents of the society to better themselves (without really gaining a mechanical advantage) through unique and interesting means. It is now banned, and that is fine. But to begin asking that use of animate dead and similar spells now be banned as well seems to be pushing it. There are some people whose entire character concepts would be invalidated (there are more necromancy themed characters out there than one may think) by doing so. If their characters are using their dead adversaries for a short time only as tools in service to the society and/or to defend their comrades in battle, why talk about banning it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ The Beard: And that breaks the morality system set into place, flimsy the morality system maybe when pressed but is maintained for reasons I don't know of. Plus it leads into the endless void known as Paladin Traps, where their action is considered to be part of the Greater Good but the action is still none the less Evil according to the morality system.
Even if the necromancer was serving the Greater Good and protecting his/her race by using the undead... that necromancer will be seen as a horrid and twisted and evil fiend who would "dare" raise the dead of loved ones and long-dead heroes.
Yet as we know the Paladin gets the pass as he is considered a vessel of pure goodness and justice... as he slays anything that defies his religion and protects all under his purview from those who would harm them.
|
|
What Momo Kimura has said, sad though it might be, does pretty much sum it up. Though, I have seen instances were a paladin's player and a necromancer's player find ways to justify their characters working well together. Essentially the paladin chooses not to destroy the necromancer's tool, IE whatever skeletons or zombies it may raise, and the necromancer in return agrees to destroy them himself once their purpose is served. Some would argue that a paladin should be forced to make an atonement for doing that.
The paladin's code does indeed mention circumstances wherein they may cooperate with individuals whose actions and/or alignment directly clash with the paladin's own moral requirements. It does, in this information, state that a paladin should periodically seek atonement during such alliances. I imagine that last part could be a little draining on one's resources. ... But I've also never seen a GM give a paladin an infraction because it tolerated the party's necromancer.
It also says paladins are to respect legitimate authority. Now, provided we assume commands issued by the Pathfinder Society are considered to have come from legitimate authority, this would mean cooperation with something they can't stand falls under the purview of lawful activity. They've been sent on a mission, and the Pathfinder Society's precepts dictate that its members cooperate to the best of their ability. It says nothing about liking one's company.
There are three kinds Paladins I have seen in my times of gaming.
1) Divine Killers. They are pretty much played like Robots. That while on their mission will kill anything not belonging to their purview. No bribe, no clever words, no saving-the-innocents, shall obstruct their path of Righteous Destruction while on a Mission. As nothing matters but what they are sent out to do.
Example:
Little undead girl who is Lawful Good in alignment and is different from other undead? Slain! For she is undead.
2) Shoulder Angels. They will (figurative or literally) sit on your shoulder and try to advise you against evil actions. They will not commit an act they view as evil and refuse to take part in wanton bloodshed in how they see it.
Example:
The Paladin refuses to kill the group of Vampire Children who have been killing the towns livestock for nourishment for the Paladin only sees Children and for the most part the Vampires don't have Evil in their alignment tag, they are really just Chaotic Neutral.
^
This is also considered a Paladin Trap for it pits him against his beliefs and his mission.
3) Laid-Back Crusader. These are the most comfortable Paladins to be around who will do their job but are not Shoulder Angels for causing split-ends with the party because of their "Beliefs" and are not Divine Killers who only seek to "purge" others in their "Sacred" Mission.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still reading folks, just not joining the conversation because I can do without the malice. I'm only writing this because I won't see your responses for another 16 hours, its game night, tonight.
While I couldn't disagree with your position on this matter more, I certainly have no malice towards you (or anyone for that matter). If it reads that way, it certainly isn't my intention.
Personally, if I wanted to play an unrestricted game, I'd play an Aspis Consortium Campaign. And the reality is, that without restrictions (moral, alignment, feat, spell, etc...), Pathfinder Society is the Aspis Consortium.
This isn't an option in PFS, and with some of our schedules regular home games with the same people are hard.
Once you take out one restriction, you'll find 20 new threads requesting other restrictions to be removed. And if you take one down, another one will come up for debate. And once all the restrictions are gone, I firmly believe each one of your will quit, one by one. You'll find different reasons but eventually, you'll all get sick of it, if everything becomes up for play.
I am always leery of any argument that could be used to equal effect for the opposing side.
Once you one restriction, you'll find 20 new threads requesting other restrictions to be . And if you one, another one will come up for debate. And once all the are gone, I firmly believe each one of you will quit, one by one. You'll find different reasons, but eventually you'll all get sick of it if up for play.
But I will try and bring this back to some middle ground for a second and not be so adversarial. I firmly support you and your friends having fun in your store or home in whatever way most pleases you, so long as what you are doing does not somehow negatively impact the fun that my friends and I are having. Is this a statement that you would be willing to reciprocate?
(Not direct at anyone...)
You tell me whats evil about blood power? For some reason its seen as an evil act.
In Avatar the Last Airbender people who were Bloodbenders were seen as evil.
In Dragon Age (1&2) Blood Magic was seen as evil as it could for instance turn the mage into an Abomination when cornered or into Flesh Golem if they were highly skilled in the art. It also had other "nefarious" purposes.
If you want in-game Pathfinder references to Blood Magic:
1) The Watersinger for Undine Bards
(Lifewater (Su): Alternatively, he may use this ability to attempt a reposition combat maneuver, using his base attack bonus and his Charisma modifier as his CMB. This ability has a range of 30 feet, only works on creatures whose bodies contain fluid, and does not affect creatures that are immune to critical hits.)
2) The Blood Mage prestige class that uses blood to fuel their own spellcasting?
3) Blood Transcription.
(By consuming 1 pint of blood from a spellcaster killed within the last 24 hours, you can attempt to learn a spell that spellcaster knew. Select one spell available to the dead spellcaster (this must be a spell on your spell list); you gain the knowledge of this spell for 24 hours. During this time, you may write it down (or teach it to your familiar, if you are a witch) using the normal rules for copying a spell from another source. Once you have learned it, you may prepare the spell normally.)
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Isn't it supposed to be not as Black and White as the morality system dictates even though Paladins get the short-end of the stick on this matter? Like isn't it how you use the Power, the Tools, the Weapons, the Information that truly shows the colors of the character?
I'm still reading folks, just not joining the conversation because I can do without the malice. I'm only writing this because I won't see your responses for another 16 hours, its game night, tonight.
Personally, if I wanted to play an unrestricted game, I'd play an Aspis Consortium Campaign. And the reality is, that without restrictions (moral, alignment, feat, spell, etc...), Pathfinder Society is the Aspis Consortium.
Once you take out one restriction, you'll find 20 new threads requesting other restrictions to be removed. And if you take one down, another one will come up for debate. And once all the restrictions are gone, I firmly believe each one of your will quit, one by one. You'll find different reasons but eventually, you'll all get sick of it, if everything becomes up for play.
Eric, while Sitri made almost every point I wished to say to you on the above, he missed this one detail. Should not responsible players (like myself, and I assume, you) and Game Masters take the responsibility of "restricting" destructive (to the Society in character or Paizo ooc) behaviour? What if my table can handle it? What if we don't have any , as you said, "a-holes who ruin it for everyone"? Why must we suffer the limitations of your table?
Once more, for emphasis:
Why must we suffer the limitations of YOUR table?
I mean you neither personal disrespect nor malice, but please, play how you like and let others play as they please. This is still a game, yes?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... Should not responsible players (like myself, and I assume, you) and Game Masters take the responsibility of "restricting" destructive (to the Society in character or Paizo ooc) behaviour? ...
I happen to firmly agree with you on this.
Having said that, many of us are in a real life society where:
Personal responsibility is down played and group responsibility is enforced by those seen as in charge. "It's not my place to tell him what to do. I'm not in charge. He doesn't see anything wrong with it, who am I to tell him what to believe?"
Personal face-to-face confrontation is seen as bad (even if you are trying to limit unpleasant/offensive behavior). "Grin and bear it. Just get along. His freedom is more important than your offended morals."
I'm not certain it is the correct move. But I can easily see why, in the environment that actually exists, the leadership felt they had to enforce a ruling like this for everyone.
|
2) The Blood Mage prestige class that uses blood to fuel their own spellcasting?The prestige class is called the Bloatmage, and is from the City of Strangers sourcebook. Blood Mage is the term used on the d20pfsrd site, which is not an official source.
"We prefer hemotheurges, please. Thank you very much, darling."
|
Eric, while Sitri made almost every point I wished to say to you on the above, he missed this one detail. Should not responsible players (like myself, and I assume, you) and Game Masters take the responsibility of "restricting" destructive (to the Society in character or Paizo ooc) behaviour? What if my table can handle it? What if we don't have any , as you said, "a-holes who ruin it for everyone"? Why must we suffer the limitations of your table?
Once more, for emphasis:
Why must we suffer the limitations of YOUR table?
I'm 37 but let's try a different tact.
I want to drink alcohol at 16, why can't I? (BTW, they can in other countries.)
Should not responsible 16 year olds(like myself, and I assume, you) and Police and Judges take the responsibility of "restricting" destructive (to the Community) behavior? What if my teenage friends and I, can handle it? What if we don't have any , as you said, ("a-holes who ruin it for everyone"? Why must we suffer the limitations of your community's bad experiences?
Once more, for emphasis:
Why must we suffer the limitations of your community's bad experiences?
Sound familiar?
When you formulate the response to my questions, you'll have answered your own.
So... Are moving on to politics now?
I'm 37 but let's try a different tact.
I want to drink alcohol at 16, why can't I? (BTW, they can in other countries.)
Should not responsible 16 year olds(like myself, and I assume, you) and Police and Judges take the responsibility of "restricting" destructive (to the Community) behavior? What if my teenage friends and I, can handle it? What if we don't have any , as you said, ("a-holes who ruin it for everyone"? Why must we suffer the limitations of your community's bad experiences?
Once more, for emphasis:
Why must we suffer the limitations of your community's bad experiences?
Sound familiar?
When you formulate the response to my questions, you'll have answered your own.
Perfectly put! Since you and I are both adults (I am 35 since October), not only can we BOTH responsibly drink alcohol, but one may presume we can handle a little Pathfinder action, too! Maybe not at the same time (bad in my experience BUT if it works at another table...), complete with all the necromantic blood-drinking antics as written in the books!
Mr. Saxon, I cordially invite you to Missoula for a beer and a magic duel, (not with each other, of course, no PVP and all, but we CAN split the bar tab) haha
Smile, Eric
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh so its evil if I learn some fellas past with their blood.
Yet its fair game if the barbarian punches a hole in a fellas chest and eats his heart for healing and powers?
|
|
Cheers Baron Ulfhamr, maybe one day I can visit. Is that Missoula, MT?
Oh so its evil if I learn some fellas past with their blood.
Yet its fair game if the barbarian punches a hole in a fellas chest and eats his heart for healing and powers?
And which legal PFS build allows this? Honestly, I don't know, please educate me.
Alright maybe not the feasting part.
Bloody Fist (Ex) (Demon Hunter's Handbook pg. 8): While raging, the barbarian may attempt to punch through an opponent’s flesh and rip out one of its vital organs. In order to do so, the barbarian must confirm a critical hit against an opponent with a natural attack or unarmed strike. The barbarian deals damage as normal for a critical hit and the opponent must succeed at a Fortitude save (DC = 10 + 1/2 the barbarian’s class level + the barbarian’s Strength modifier) or take 1d4 points of Constitution damage as one of its vital organs is ripped free from its body. This power can only be used once per rage. A barbarian must be at least 12th level to select this rage power.
Perfectly legal. Strangely taking out the heart does not kill the target, just does minor CON damage.
Not legal part is stage 2, the second rage power in the chain.
Feast of Blood (Su) (Demon Hunter's Handbook pg. 8): While raging, the barbarian may feast on the organs of her foes and absorb their power. After successfully ripping out a creature’s vital organ, the barbarian may eat the organ within 1 minute of extracting it as a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity. Once the organ is consumed, the barbarian recovers a number of hit points equal to the Hit Dice of the organ’s owner. In addition, the barbarian gains any energy immunities or resistances the victim had, though the effectiveness of these resistances is halved (for instance, a barbarian who eats the heart of a creature with resist cold 10 would gain resist cold 5; energy immunities are reduced to resist energy 20). This energy resistance lasts for a number of rounds equal to half the Hit Dice of the creature whose organ was consumed. A barbarian must have the bloody fist rage power to select this rage power. A barbarian must be at least 14th level to select this rage power.
Cheers Baron Ulfhamr, maybe one day I can visit. Is that Missoula, MT?
The very same!
Further comparison to your example, if I may, is while some drink beer, others do not. There are age/maturity regulations on this act to avoid abuse and harm. Some prefer not to drink at all, yet retain the right to do so if they wish.
See where I'm going? My friends and I are plenty old enough, and bans lead to prohibitions of things we responsibly enjoy. Gotta be some middle ground somewhere, right? A "rated game " system? I dunno...
Not at all, rather that those of us that are , in fact, adult should retain the ability to drink/play bloodmages/necromancers whether we choose to or not. If we need a "kiddie table", or just a more child friendly environment (i.e. blood or beer drinking would be frowned upon) then that choice should be made, whilst not affecting another venue where such considerations are unnecessary, unwarranted, and/or unwanted.
Our table is ready for the necromancer to break out the deathwine, but drink or pass as you like would be preferable to a universal prohibition, lol... necropuns....
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our table is ready for the necromancer to break out the deathwine, but drink or pass as you like would be preferable to a universal prohibition, lol... necropuns....
I would gladly bring my army of juju zombies to your table for beer, sir. If only it wasn't in another state!
Anyway, it seems to me the general assumption being made a lot is that anything that could even be construed as "evil power" is going to cause a disruption out of character. Even in character I've barely seen anyone have a problem with responsibly used corpse puppets. Plus would not a boring game it make if everyone's characters were just permanently banned from doing anything with a darker theme? For some reason, some people would want that.
|
Blood for knowledge, bones for soldiers, organ feasting for power.
When the expectation is playing some form of neutral or good character there is not much to turn to if you want to break the mold. Even if the intentions behind the player is not inherently evil.
Something about cannibalism and raising the dead being automatically evil acts no matter how you frame it.
I enjoy playing my Juju Oracle even if it is the watered-down version.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blood for knowledge, bones for soldiers, organ feasting for power.
When the expectation is playing some form of neutral or good character there is not much to turn to if you want to break the mold. Even if the intentions behind the player is not inherently evil.Something about cannibalism and raising the dead being automatically evil acts no matter how you frame it.
I enjoy playing my Juju Oracle even if it is the watered-down version.
Oh yeah, they're definitely evil. Doesn't mean necromancy should be banned, though. It all falls back to the "using the darkness to find the light" mindset that I think quite a few people had in mind. Not a whole lot that can be done I don't guess, but at least we can try to slow the trend down. It's better than doing nothing.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one who sees this in a game to game way?
Grand Lodge Captain: Stabby Mchshankerson, what is your profession?
Stabby Mchshankerson: *Eyes darting back and forth* I like to stick my knives in peoples back.
GLC: Wonderful! Your hired you little angel. Raging Maven, what is your profession?
Raging Maven: *Inaudible growls and howls*
GLC: Hmm I see, you got the spirit were looking for! Last but not least Bob Marsh, what is your profession?
Bob Marsh: Well you see I raise the dea-
GLC: You Horrible Monster! OUT THIS INSTANCE!
So what methods of playing a necromancer are legal?
So what methods of playing a necromancer are legal?
A lot of necromancy spells are still allowed, including debuffs such as boneshatter and the ones that raise undead. Additionally bones oracle and a necromancy specialized wizard are legal. Really depends on what you call a necromancer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what methods of playing a necromancer are legal?
For now, the necromancer (as a specialist wizard) and most of the necromancy school are legal. Some necro-oriented archetypes for other classes have been banned (undead lord- cleric, vivisectionist- alchemist, etc.) and all blood drinking and flesh eating spells/feats/etc., some being on the grounds of being evil.
The whole point of this thread is simple: If these are evil, yet diabolists and Asmodeus-worshippers are not, I feel no reasonable certainty what will or won't be banned under the evil pretense.
We may actually be switching from PFS format to play Rise of the Rune Lords, with normal rules. Does that mean that PFS is entry-level only (if you want "muture content")? I hope not! I enjoy the idea of the Society, the factions, and the ongoing support for PFS. I hope this ban trend doesn't end up weeding me (or others) out.
For now, the necromancer (as a specialist wizard) and most of the necromancy school are legal. Some necro-oriented archetypes for other classes have been banned (undead lord- cleric, vivisectionist- alchemist, etc.) and all blood drinking and flesh eating spells/feats/etc., some being on the grounds of being evil.
Reanimator is the Herbert West of alchemist. Vivisectionist actually doesn't have anything to do with necromancy, but it was banned for an entirely different reason.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what methods of playing a necromancer are legal?For now, the necromancer (as a specialist wizard) and most of the necromancy school are legal. Some necro-oriented archetypes for other classes have been banned (undead lord- cleric, vivisectionist- alchemist, etc.) and all blood drinking and flesh eating spells/feats/etc., some being on the grounds of being evil.
The whole point of this thread is simple: If these are evil, yet diabolists and Asmodeus-worshippers are not, I feel no reasonable certainty what will or won't be banned under the evil pretense.
We may actually be switching from PFS format to play Rise of the Rune Lords, with normal rules. Does that mean that PFS is entry-level only (if you want "muture content")? I hope not! I enjoy the idea of the Society, the factions, and the ongoing support for PFS. I hope this ban trend doesn't end up weeding me (or others) out.
Why yes you can play a Tiefling who is a Diabolist and worshiper of Asmodeus that hangs around the Chelaxians. Be a eater of gourmet tongues of all sorts and perhaps some other tasty "treats". You can for a price have a slave that with the right tools and reprogramming will do anything that the master wishes no matter how diabolic. You could dance on peoples graves and give no cares. Perhaps your character would like a couple extra gold pieces, you know, sell some organs you harvested for a quick copper.
What am I getting at? Nothing evil as far as the game is concerned and is part of the accepted norm in that sure some other faction may hate you for being a Chelaxian Devil though its not like playing a Sczarni is a step up from being a slimeball mobster where openly wearing your faction can get you killed like one may wear openly wear a gangs colors.
If I honestly wanted a party of Good Guys that go beat up the Bad Guys, the party might as well be just Paladins. Yeah, those guys who are the pinnacles of Goody Two-ness as far as the game is concerned when the Paladin is not just a straight up murderous jerk.