Is Destroying a Fellow Player's Raised Dead / Commanded Undead an action that Constitutes PVP in Society Play?


Pathfinder Society

151 to 200 of 306 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ulfhamr, me as a player, no.

My ranged fighter who is also a worshiper of Pharasma has no problems defending a Necromancer played by a guy at our table, he's a pragmatist first and a believer second and a Necromancer is just another kind of ally. As far as he's concerned, your soul is your own and he wouldn't hesitate to heal a fallen comrade who is a necromancer and tell that same Necromancer to cast Greater Infernal Healing on him, when he goes into battle.

But my priest of Pharasma isn't built the same way. He doesn't think the same way, he's been on different scenarios than the ranged fighter, he actually went to Geb on one of his missions and he is a different person, in both his reactions and his perspectives. And he would let a necromancer bleed to death, without any hesitation.

What you seem to be unable to differentiate is that different PCs will act differently, according to their own moral codes because you think of PFS as a roll playing game, where the same player applies the same stigmas and moral preferences, across the board to all his PCs.

I play a role playing game on the other hand and each PC will be played differently. And I consider it bad form for a player to get angry when he's playing a Necromancer and expecting a Priest of Pharasma or some other good aligned Priest to do their best to keep him alive.

As far I'm concerned as a player, if a player wants to play a Necromancer, he is choosing to play a role of the outcast, the guy who sets himself apart from others and a loner, who follows a darker path to power. ROLE PLAY it and be smarter and be ready to step on toes and make people uncomfortable. You play a Necromancer, then you need to role play the guy who doesn't depend on others. But don't try to rules lawyer other people into not role playing their PCs because that is unfair to other people's fun.

Dark Archive 2/5

It isn't a matter of rules lawyering. There actually is in fact a line in the guide touching on matters such as this. Saying it's what your character would do is NOT considered a viable excuse. I agree with you to to some extent, that a character will do what a character will do. That being said, there does need to be some points of compromise. 'Course I can argue this till I'm blue in the face, and it won't get through to some. So it's on people to figure out where to draw that line.

1/5

here's a solution to the problem, first off not all animated undead are humanoids. How would you feel about having a tiny bit of rp with the character first? come to a understanding that once the meat sacks are done handling the bad guys, they can be dusted by your character at will?

I play a cleric of Pharasma, yes he detests undead... but if animating falled foes aids the party briefly and he is able to dust the undead after... i see no harm, no foul.

positive energy damage which destroys undead, causes them to crumble to dust.... hey! your just helping nature along, and besides you had to make sure some other clown wasn't going to animate them... just saying.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eric Saxon wrote:

Honestly, I don’t know. When they say you can play a necromancer, what they are essentially saying is that you can play the guy who ‘dug up your grandma’s bones and then stitched them together with arcane power to make her fight to the death on his behalf.’

No one has ever quite explained how doing that, isn’t an act that would automatically turn you into an evil monster.

Heck, maybe it wasn’t grandma’s bones, maybe it was a child who died in a logging accident a month ago, or a father who died defending his family from a goblin raid, or maybe just their pet, Fido. How turning any of those people into your personal, shambling bone and meat shields never seemed like something that wouldn’t automatically turn you evil. But hey, maybe I’m just not open minded enough. And we’re not even getting into the desecration of the personal dignity of the remains of the deceased. Heck, I'm sure some the folks on this board would consider it 'neutral' behavior if it was their loved one, who was used in such a manner.

I’m just glad that my Priest of Pharasma isn’t troubled about such things, he's more of the, “How do you want to do this? One in the head or one in the heart?” kind of guy. He seems to get it, much more than me, and he's not exactly interested in an intellectual debate with necromancers, unless there is a resolution that ends with said necromancer, meeting Pharasma's justice.

I donate blood on a somewhat regular basis and I have signed away all rights to any of my organs after I die. If someone else can benefit from them, I think it the good and noble thing to do to allow them to do so, even if I see no benefit and I don't even know them. Other people are better off for having access to the resources my body produced naturally, and it really doesn't even cost me anything to allow them to do so.

While I know it is a very common sentiment for people to want to preserve their bodies after death, I would feel like an obnoxious prick to say "When I am dead and have absolutely no use for my former body, make sure no one else can benefit from it in any way either........until of course nature breaks down my molecules and they get transferred into other living things. Damn you mother nature! Why do you hate me so?"


Eric Saxon wrote:

...

What you seem to be unable to differentiate is that different PCs will act differently, according to their own moral codes because you think of PFS as a roll playing game, where the same player applies the same stigmas and moral preferences, across the board to all his PCs.

I play a role playing game on the other hand and each PC will be played differently. And I consider it bad form for a player to get angry when he's playing a Necromancer and expecting a Priest of Pharasma or some other good aligned Priest to do their best to keep him alive.

As far I'm concerned as a player, if a player wants to play a Necromancer, he is choosing to play a role of the outcast, the guy who sets himself apart from others and a loner, who follows a darker path to power. ROLE PLAY it and be smarter and be ready to step on toes and make people uncomfortable. You play a Necromancer, then you need to role play the guy who doesn't depend on others. But don't try to rules lawyer other people into not role playing their PCs because that is unfair to other people's fun.

OK, I get where you're coming from now, but on a forum like this (without outside context) it's hard to differentiate role player Eric Saxon's views and Cleric of Pharasma (insert name here)'s views. My apologies for misunderstanding that point.

I like playing oddball characters (like necromancers) because of the role play challenge of making them work, as oppose to the roll play challenge of running them over everyone else's role play. My beef is that if bickering continues and necromancers are banned, my role play opportunity will be overrun by new rules banning them.

If my necromancer and your cleric WERE in the same party, can you imagine the in character conversation that would have to take place? That deepens a character beyond "DPS, Controller, Tank, etc." thinking that takes my head out of the game.

All that said, if we WERE in such a party we'd HAVE to reach some sort of compromise, as PvP is illegal in PFS as a metagame ruling. What do you say to my previous post as to why "digging up grandma" just wouldn't happen? THAT necromancer deserves your ire, and gains little for it. Could we reach an accord, or would Pogrist (my necromancer) have to hide his specialty for the first couple missions?

Grand Lodge 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sitri wrote:
I donate blood on a somewhat regular basis and I have signed away all rights to any of my organs after I die....

Ditto on everything you've said, down to the last verb and noun. All the things you've said are true for me as a PLAYER, the guy sitting on the other side of this computer.

I don't know what this has to do with my Hierophant of Pharasma. Nor do I understand what this has to do with how I role-play him.

Grand Lodge 1/5

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

I like playing oddball characters (like necromancers) because of the role play challenge of making them work, as oppose to the roll play challenge of running them over everyone else's role play. My beef is that if bickering continues and necromancers are banned, my role play opportunity will be overrun by new rules banning them.

If my necromancer and your cleric WERE in the same party, can you imagine the in character conversation that would have to take place? That deepens a character beyond "DPS, Controller, Tank, etc." thinking that takes my head out of the game.

All that said, if we WERE in such a party we'd HAVE to reach some sort of compromise, as PvP is illegal in PFS as a metagame ruling. What do you say to my previous post as to why "digging up grandma" just wouldn't happen? THAT necromancer deserves your ire, and gains little for it. Could we reach an accord, or would Pogrist (my necromancer) have to hide his specialty for the first couple missions?

Spoilers for 2-25:
Post 02-25 "You Only Die Twice," I'd have to say no. Prior to Sigmar (the priest's name) playing in that scenario, you maybe would get a chance to prove yourself and show that not all necromancers need to be purged immediately.

Mind you, your chance of playing with a lvl. 11 Priest of Pharasma are non-existent since he's going into the Eyes of the Ten in a couple of months when the rest of the players at my store are at 12.

But that scenario essentially changed him profoundly. The 'concentration camp' cattle pens in Geb shifted him into a whole new sphere of "Zealot of Pharasma." Mind you, he has the Mitre of the Hierophant so he could atone himself for free if he helped your Necromancer but on an internal profound level, he wouldn't budge. And if he was retired AKA fired from the Pathfinder Society for failure to cooperate with any Necromancer, he'd just join the Crusade against Geb and wouldn't look back.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
A Necromantic version of Rhapsodic College Dropout might have wrote:
I know the topic of animal abuse has been discussed in length on the forums, but I just don't see how a druid (especially one with a good alignment) should be allowed to tame wild animals and drag them with him to the ends of the earth just to watch them suffer and die. At least my minions don't have a soul, don't feel pain, and certainly don't need to be "pushed" against their will.
Actually, that's why Gormheir doesn't name his riding gecko, and uses it like expendable cover. He sees it as expendable as the cow that was his dinner last night. If he didn't he would never take it into combat, because if he cared about it, that would just be cruel.

Hah, I like Gormheir. Of course the first thing that comes to mind is that Living Greyhawk module that had the PCs going to the Beastlands to participate in some kind of pan-Dimensional games. The former animal companions, familiars, and mounts of all the characters (yes ALL of them, from Sir Barksley the First to Barksalot the 558th) confronted the PCs in front of the very powerful, very human-unfriendly greater powers about what murderers and abusers the PCs were for taking the off and getting them killed. It was a load of fun, at least for the one PC who had to that point never gotten an animal companion/familiar/mount killed.

3/5

Eric Saxon wrote:
I don't know what this has to do with my Hierophant of Pharasma. Nor do I understand what this has to do with how I role-play him.

Well if you are going to RP your character as a religions fundamentalist/fanatic you need to accept that sometimes you are going to be just as disruptive as someone who skirts the evil alignment line. And as basically everyone else here has stated hing behind RP is no excuse for not cooperating with the other characters that wind up at your table.

Eric Saxon wrote:
And if he was retired AKA fired from the Pathfinder Society for failure to cooperate with any Necromancer, he'd just join the Crusade against Geb and wouldn't look back.

This might be the best thing to do with the character a this point. It removes the potential problem and provides a logical RP end to the character if they were truly as traumatized by their time in Geb as you have said.

My attitude has always been that because of specifics of the campaign there are some character concepts that are not going to be successful PFS characters. Characters who are dogmatically opposed to other common character concepts are an example of that which should possibly be avoided.

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, you should know that creating a character who uses Animate Dead on a regular basis has the potential to cause conflict with other characters. It's provocative, whether you want it to be or not.

My first character in PFS was an inquisitor of Pharasma, that's not a controversial character. An undead raising character is a controversial character. So yes the onus is on the undead raising character to tread carefully and be aware that your choices may cause issues for other players.

My inquisitor is not a religious fanatic, he is prepared to bite his tongue in pursuit of pathfinder goals and deal with people who he finds distasteful. However having someone animating dead in front of him is the same as having someone saying "Oh I summon creatures by desecrating your holy symbol" there are limits to explore, report, co-operate.

Bottom line you are casting an evil spell and committing an evil act. Every PFS character is either good or neutral. By playing this character you are stepping on a load of toes and you should know this. Therefore you should be prepared to not play this character where it will upset other players. I do that, it's common courtesy.

Of course it's better that you sort out a compromise but really it's not fair that the necromancer gets to dictate terms to the table, when it's his character that's causing the problem.


Saint Caleth wrote:
Eric Saxon wrote:
I don't know what this has to do with my Hierophant of Pharasma. Nor do I understand what this has to do with how I role-play him.
Well if you are going to RP your character as a religions fundamentalist/fanatic you need to accept that sometimes you are going to be just as disruptive as someone who skirts the evil alignment line. And as basically everyone else here has stated hing behind RP is no excuse for not cooperating with the other characters that wind up at your table.

But... My religious fundamentalist is a good guy! Undead are bad, duh! So its okay for me to break them and the other guy had it coming and should've seen it coming!

On a more serious note, breaking other people's toys isn't cool. From an ingame perspective, its a mess... From a meta-perspective, you really do run into all sorts of characters and cooperating with the bro to the right and left of you is important. Its not a safe thought that 'its bad for them' or 'they had it coming!' nor, 'but I'm the good guy!'. In the end your all people who came to the table to have fun. If there's a personal problem, deal with it out of the game. Dealing with things inside of the game rarely if ever ends well.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FallofCamelot wrote:
Honestly, you should know that creating a character who uses Animate Dead on a regular basis has the potential to cause conflict with other characters. It's provocative, whether you want it to be or not.

On the other hand, creating a fanatical character who would be tempted to kill fellow party members by either action or inaction is equally provocative and I suspect that someone with such starkly inflexible character RP wants it to be rather than not.

FallofCamelot wrote:
My inquisitor is not a religious fanatic, he is prepared to bite his tongue in pursuit of pathfinder goals and deal with people who he finds distasteful. However having someone animating dead in front of him is the same as having someone saying "Oh I summon creatures by desecrating your holy symbol" there are limits to explore, report, co-operate.

Well if your inquisitor is willing to do his job as a pathfinder and cooperate then he is not what i am pointing to as a problem. Worshipers of Pharasma are not the problem. Disruptive characters are the problem and in my time DMing I have come across far more disruptive paladins/"good" characters than disruptive evildoers and that certainly colors the way I see this argument.

FallofCamelot wrote:

Bottom line you are casting an evil spell and committing an evil act. Every PFS character is either good or neutral. By playing this character you are stepping on a load of toes and you should know this. Therefore you should be prepared to not play this character where it will upset other players. I do that, it's common courtesy.

Of course it's better that you sort out a compromise but really it's not fair that the necromancer gets to dictate terms to the table, when it's his character that's causing the problem.

Playing a character with a homicidal response to someone else's character is equally stepping on toes from where I am sitting. If you are the only one who has a problem with the necromancer and 3-4 other players are perfectly willing to play alongside them then the necromancer is not the problem, your character is.

My solution as a DM if I ever encounter this kind of thing is to just veto both the necromancer and the fanatic which does wonders for solving the problem without the player of the necromancer feeling singled out or the player of the fanatic feeling like I let the necromancer "dictate anything" whatever that means.

5/5

FallofCamelot wrote:
Bottom line you are casting an evil spell and committing an evil act.

Casting a spell with the evil descriptor is not an inherently evil action in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.

5/5

Folks, there are two kinds of characters that cause tension like we are describing.

1. The ones that do their own thing, and other characters have a problem with that.
2. The ones that have a problem with other characters doing their own thing.

So, how do we justify the first kind? "The Pathfinder Society is about a bunch of people being thrown together to accomplish a goal regardless of suitability. The expectation is cooperation; as long as I'm doing my own thing, I don't see the problem."

Okay, so how do we justify the second kind?

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
On a more serious note, breaking other people's toys isn't cool. From an ingame perspective, its a mess... From a meta-perspective, you really do run into all sorts of characters and cooperating with the bro to the right and left of you is important. Its not a safe thought that 'its bad for them' or 'they had it coming!' nor, 'but I'm the good guy!'. In the end your all people who came to the table to have fun. If there's a personal problem, deal with it out of the game. Dealing with things inside of the game rarely if ever ends well.

I think that everyone in this thread could give this perspective a little consideration. In PFS especially we are bound by a bit more of an out of game social contract than in most campaigns. Part of that social contract is the fact that unlike a real campaign where you can invest time in making sure your party meshes in interesting ways, party composition in PFS is driven mostly by concerns such as level range and random signups which means that players have to be even more willing than usual to potentially compromise their character's personality in the name of cooperation.

I would also like to point out that a character who has an integral personality trait that they will categorically not cooperate with certain other characters is not an appropriate character concept for PFS based on both in game and more importantly out of game logic.

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
Bottom line you are casting an evil spell and committing an evil act.
Casting a spell with the evil descriptor is not an inherently evil action in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.

Desecrating a corpse is.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:

Folks, there are two kinds of characters that cause tension like we are describing.

1. The ones that do their own thing, and other characters have a problem with that.
2. The ones that have a problem with other characters doing their own thing.

So, how do we justify the first kind? "The Pathfinder Society is about a bunch of people being thrown together to accomplish a goal regardless of suitability. The expectation is cooperation; as long as I'm doing my own thing, I don't see the problem."

Okay, so how do we justify the second kind?

Don't be a jerk.

EDIT: I meant the rule. Not calling you a jerk Patrick!

3/5

FallofCamelot wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:

Folks, there are two kinds of characters that cause tension like we are describing.

1. The ones that do their own thing, and other characters have a problem with that.
2. The ones that have a problem with other characters doing their own thing.

So, how do we justify the first kind? "The Pathfinder Society is about a bunch of people being thrown together to accomplish a goal regardless of suitability. The expectation is cooperation; as long as I'm doing my own thing, I don't see the problem."

Okay, so how do we justify the second kind?

Don't be a jerk.

That is just as argument against the second kind, not a justification of them. Making a character who's very concept involves potentially breaking the first rule of PFS (cooperate) is being a jerk far more than playing a necromancer is.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:

That said, Shadowcat, the necromancer needs to also be able to get along with the Paladin.

That means a little of the paladin holding back what he really wants to do, and a little of the necromancer holding back what he really wants to do.

Mu-must... resist... urge... to... slay... undead

Mu-must... resist... urge... to... slay... annoying... paladin.

5/5

FallofCamelot wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:

Folks, there are two kinds of characters that cause tension like we are describing.

1. The ones that do their own thing, and other characters have a problem with that.
2. The ones that have a problem with other characters doing their own thing.

So, how do we justify the first kind? "The Pathfinder Society is about a bunch of people being thrown together to accomplish a goal regardless of suitability. The expectation is cooperation; as long as I'm doing my own thing, I don't see the problem."

Okay, so how do we justify the second kind?

Don't be a jerk.

EDIT: I meant the rule. Not calling you a jerk Patrick!

"Don't be a jerk" would be my response to someone saying, "I built a character who will play at tables with 3-5 completely random other people every time, and he's totally intolerant of a legal campaign choice!"

Edit: Thanks for the clarification. I figured that's what you meant, but it's still a good point to clarify. ;)

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FallofCamelot wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
Bottom line you are casting an evil spell and committing an evil act.
Casting a spell with the evil descriptor is not an inherently evil action in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
Desecrating a corpse is.

Can you please direct me to where that is written? I don't see any mention of dead bodies in the Alignment section of Additional Rules.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Saint Caleth wrote:
Well if you are going to RP your character as a religions fundamentalist/fanatic you need to accept that sometimes you are going to be just as disruptive as someone who skirts the evil alignment line. And as basically everyone else here has stated hing behind RP is no excuse for not cooperating with the other characters that wind up at your table.

Keep in mind that for large swathes of Golarion. "Its undead! Torches and pitchforks, STAT!" is the main stream religious/social reaction to undead, not an obscure fanatical sect. Having an extreme reaction to the undead isn't out of line.

Its still an evil act (the [evil] is still there in the brackets, good clerics/clerics of good deities can't cast it.. for a reason) it just won't affect your alignment.

5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its still an evil act (the [evil] is still there in the brackets, good clerics/clerics of good deities can't cast it.. for a reason) it just won't affect your alignment.

"Simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself."

-- Mike Brock, 6 August 2012

Edit:
You may have been thinking of the proviso from Guide 4.2 that everyone except Paladins got a "get out of Hell free" card for the purpose of doing their faction missions. That was, in my opinion, fairly problematic in and of itself, but it's also irrelevant now, so I say we don't get into it. ;p

3/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
Well if you are going to RP your character as a religions fundamentalist/fanatic you need to accept that sometimes you are going to be just as disruptive as someone who skirts the evil alignment line. And as basically everyone else here has stated hing behind RP is no excuse for not cooperating with the other characters that wind up at your table.

Keep in mind that for large swathes of Golarion. "Its undead! Torches and pitchforks, STAT!" is the main stream religious/social reaction to undead, not an obscure fanatical sect. Having an extreme reaction to the undead isn't out of line.

Its still an evil act (the [evil] is still there in the brackets, good clerics/clerics of good deities can't cast it.. for a reason) it just won't affect your alignment.

The fanatic part was not about hating the undead, which as you mentioned is a completely reasonable reaction especially for the unwashed, pitchfork wielding masses.

The problem comes when that reaction in a PFS character is not tempered by the fact that both in-game and out of game that character is expected to cooperate with others. The fact that a great strength of PFS is the ability to play a character anywhere. The corollary of this is that the other characters you have to play alongside and cooperate with is random and mostly out of your control. I feel that a character who breaks the main guideline of PFS play and refuses to cooperate is less welcome than a character who does diststeful things in-game like necromancy.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its still an evil act (the [evil] is still there in the brackets, good clerics/clerics of good deities can't cast it.. for a reason) it just won't affect your alignment.

"Simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself."

-- Mike Brock, 6 August 2012

** spoiler omitted **

Actually, you might want to take another look at the PFS Guides. That was specifically in reference to the 4.3 Guide and about evil actions and spells done for the Faction Heads, not in general (hence raising undead vs Infernal Healing), and no longer applies. :)

5.0 Guide:

Alignment Infractions
Players are responsible for their characters’ actions. Killing an innocent, wanton destruction, and other acts that can be construed as evil by the GM may be considered alignment infractions. “That’s just what my character would do” is not a defense for behaving like a jerk.
Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table, but she must warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning must be clear, and the GM must make sure that the player understands the
warning and the actions that initiated the warning. The PC should be given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences. We believe a deity would forgive a onetime bad choice as long as the action wasn’t too egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport, etc.). Hence, the GM can issue a warning to the player through a “feeling” he receives from his deity, a vision he is given, his conscience talking to him, or some other similar roleplaying event.
If infractions continue in the course of the scenario or sanctioned module or adventure path, an alignment change may be in order.
If the GM deems these continued actions warrant an alignment change, she should note it on the character’s Chronicle sheet at the end of the session in the Conditions Gained box. The character may remove this gained condition through an atonement spell. If the condition is removed, the GM should also note it on the Chronicle sheet. Characters who become wantonly evil, whose actions are deliberate and without motive or provocation, are retired from the campaign. This measure is a last resort; there is more than one way to play a given alignment.
If a character has become wantonly evil as defined above, the GM should escalate the report to the convention coordinator, or the local Venture-
Captain or Venture-Lieutenant. If they agree with the GM, then the character is deemed wantonly evil and considered removed from the campaign. Again, these measures should be taken as a very last resort.
In the event of a wantonly evil character, record the character as “Dead,” and the person who enters the tracking sheet should check that box as well. If the convention coordinator, Venture-Captain, or
Venture-Lieutenant decides the character fits the criteria for being wantonly evil, she will then email the campaign coordinator to advise him of the situation, including the player’s name, Pathfinder Society Number, character name, and email address. She will advise the player of these actions and offer the player the campaign coordinator’s
email address so the player may present his case.
The Campaign Coordinator will present all facts to the Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants at large with all names (both player and character) removed. If the majority of Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants feel that the act was wantonly evil and the character is
irrevocably evil, then character will remain removed from the campaign. If the majority feel the character should be able to atone for his actions, the campaign coordinator will contact the player and advise him of such. The email may be printed and taken to the next game session so the GM may adjudicate the atonement and document it on the
Chronicle sheet of the that game.

4.3 Guide:

Alignment Infractions
Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.) while following specific orders from their faction or the Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions.
These are cases where karma applies to those making the orders, not their tools. However, “that’s just what my character would do” is not a defense for behaving like a jerk.
Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table, but she must warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning must be clear, and the GM must make sure that the player understands the warning and the actions that initiated the warning. The PC should be
given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences. We believe a deity would forgive a one-time bad choice as long as the action wasn’t too egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport, etc.). Hence, the GM can issue a warning to the player through a “feeling” he receives from his deity, a vision he is given, his conscience talking to him, or some other similar roleplaying event.
If infractions continue in the course of the scenario or sanctioned module, an alignment change may be in order. If the GM deems these continued actions warrant an alignment change, she should note it on the character’s Chronicle sheet at the end of the session in the Conditions Gained box. The character may remove this gained condition through an atonement spell. If the condition is removed, the GM should also note it on the Chronicle sheet.
Characters who become wantonly evil, whose actions are deliberate and without motive or provocation, are retired from the campaign. This measure is a last resort; there is more than one way to play a given alignment. If a character has become wantonly evil as defined above, the GM should escalate the report to the convention coordinator, or the local Venture-Captain or Venture-Lieutenant. If they agree with the GM, then the character is deemed wantonly evil and considered removed from the campaign. Again, these measures should be taken as a very last resort.
In the event of a wantonly evil character, record the character as “Dead,” and the person who enters the tracking sheet should check that box as well. If the convention coordinator, Venture-Captain, or Venture-Lieutenant decides the character fits the criteria for being wantonly evil, she will then email the campaign coordinator to advise him of the situation, including the player’s name, Pathfinder Society Number, character name, and email address. She will advise the player of these actions and offer the player the campaign coordinator’s email address so the player may present his case.
The Campaign Coordinator will present all facts to the Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants at large with all names (both player and character) removed. If the majority of Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants feel that the act was wantonly evil and the character is
irrevocably evil, then character will remain removed from the campaign. If the majority feel the character should be able to atone for his actions, the campaign coordinator will contact the player and advise him of such. The email may be printed and taken to the next game session so the GM may adjudicate the atonement and document it on the
Chronicle sheet of the that game.

The reason people keep saying Clerics of Pharasma is because they are not Good, but every article about her faith indicates that not destroying undead when they can or to control undead for any purpose but to destroy them, are major taboos (a ban or absolute prohibition). The meta part is the PFS special guidelines, not playing the character according to the tenets of the faith. :)

5/5

DM Beckett wrote:

Actually, you might want to take another look at the PFS Guides. That was specifically in reference to the 4.3 Guide and about evil actions and spells done for the Faction Heads, not in general, and no longer applies. :)

** spoiler omitted **...

I don't see anything in what you've quoted that overrules that clarification about spells with the evil descriptor. The clarification in the Guide 4.3 was about things done for faction heads. The clarification by Mike Brock was very broad, and worded exactly as follows: "Simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself." There's not a lot of wiggle room on interpretation there.

Edit: You know what, this is a really important point to a lot of characters, so let's not dick around with it. FAQ this thread and let's get that settled.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

"as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues."

Shadow Lodge 4/5

I'm not saying the quote has changed as much as it is being taken out outside of the context in which it was meant, and that the specific rules it was using have changed. Here are the related quotes from that page.

W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:
the more and more I look at the Changelog, the more I am concerned about how this phrase reads:
Quote:
Page 34–35: Added the following sentence under Alignment Infractions subheading: “Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.) while following specific orders from their faction or the Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions. These are cases where karma applies to those making the orders, not their tools.”

What counts as "following specific orders"? Certainly, if a VC gives you orders to kill someone, or bring back their ear, that's a specific order. But, what about willfully casting [Evil] spells that haven't any other redeeming quality other than completing the scenario? Can a player now say "I'm working for the Pathfinder Society, so I don't have to worry about casting [Evil] spells affecting my alignment"? Can a wizard now cast Summon Monster to summon demons and devils just because they're on a mission? Or does the "following specific orders" mean that it has to be something that a VC or whomever told them to do specifically?

I mean, I'm concerned that this is going to be taken that players can cast [Evil] spells without regard to their alignment. It's already been stated that Infernal Healing is fair game ... does that mean that any [Evil] spell can be cast unless it's being used for toture, killing innocents, etc.
i'm not trying to be pedantic, but, I am really concerned about the possibilities that can be played into this reading of the new PFS Guide.
Michael Brock wrote:
Faction missions are very specific as to what has to be accomplished. Anything that steps outside those bounds are not acceptable when discussing alignment infractions. I'm trusting the GMs (as Ive been asked on numerous occassions) to adjudicate accordingly.
Stormfriend wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Faction missions are very specific as to what has to be accomplished. Anything that steps outside those bounds are not acceptable when discussing alignment infractions. I'm trusting the GMs (as Ive been asked on numerous occassions) to adjudicate accordingly.

We've had GMs on these boards stating that the casting of [Evil] spells will change a character's alignment for no reason other than they cast the spell. Relying on GM discretion doesn't work with several thousand GMs, especially when a character might get removed from play at one table for something that won't even raise an eyebrow at the table next to it. We *really* need an official answer as to whether casting an evil spell has any impact on alignment.

Michael Brock wrote:

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.

Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. Using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.

I can't possibly define what every evil act could be. That is why I rely on GM discretion. But simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself.

Silver Crusade 3/5

OK here's the thing for me. Arguing whether raising undead is evil or not (I think it is but it's open to interpretation) is not the issue here. The fact remains that raising undead is an anathema to Paladins, followers of Pharasma, most followers of a good religion, most good people and at least two factions. That's a lot of characters.

So if you are raising undead chances are high there to be someone at your table to whom this would be explicitly against their beliefs.

As a result at you have a responsibility to make sure that everybody at your table is going to be cool with you playing that. If you insist on playing that and don't compromise or offer to play another character then you are being unreasonable.

This is all theoretical though. Every person I have ever played with moderates their behaviour to fit the table. I have also changed character before now to fit the table. It's all about cooperating and not acting like your character is more important than others.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I've said, never been an issue for me personally, but I'm still curious why the <general> onus is on the Cleric/Paladin/other?

Why does the necromancer assume to get to hide behind the "don't be a jerk" and meta "cooperate" wall, while the classes that actually have a mechanical and established in game issue are automatically the ones playing the game badwrongfun?


FallofCamelot wrote:

OK here's the thing for me. Arguing whether raising undead is evil or not (I think it is but it's open to interpretation) is not the issue here. The fact remains that raising undead is an anathema to Paladins, followers of Pharasma, most followers of a good religion, most good people and at least two factions. That's a lot of characters.

So if you are raising undead chances are high there to be someone at your table to whom this would be explicitly against their beliefs.

As a result at you have a responsibility to make sure that everybody at your table is going to be cool with you playing that. If you insist on playing that and don't compromise or offer to play another character then you are being unreasonable.

That statement could easily be reversed for the people you mentioned above. Those people might be showing up with lawful jerks who aren't cooperative. Why should I have to put up with that, eh?

Also, I need a census of who thinks undead is bad before you can say most good people and factions directly opposed(I can play a necromancer in silver crusade...)

Edit: I should add, everyone should be sure to show up with someone that can cooperate with the guy to the left of them. Good or bad... Breaking anyone's toys on either side is bad. Most people probably didn't choose to play what they did just to be jerks but to have fun, everyone came to have fun, so lets not ruin it for anyone.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Edit: You know what, this is a really important point to a lot of characters, so let's not dick around with it. FAQ this thread and let's get that settled.

I think he's already settled it. (and is probably tired of looking at it)I knew i shouldn't have opened that can of worms...

It absolutely won't change your alignment.(which i made sure to say)

Its a violation for

Paladins
Clerics of good deities (can't cast it at all)
Good clerics of any deity (can't cast it at all)
Druids of any alignment
FOLLOWERS of good deities (which can be important for traits and the occasional magical item or effect)
Followers of any god with a specific tenant against undead (pharasma, Gozreh)

... which means I think its safe to say (what i was trying to say before) that it will be SEEN as evil by the populace... and by many characters. I understand if that means some characters are going to be hoping for the destruction of the undead if not the necromancer.

While I would hope that players will bend their character concept a little or find a loophole to let them cooperate with the other player, I feel I have to respect their choice if they decide not to, just as I have to respect the choice of the necromancer to push the bounds of shady behavior.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
While I would hope that players will bend their character concept a little or find a loophole to let them cooperate with the other player, I feel I have to respect their choice if they decide not to, just as I have to respect the choice of the necromancer to push the bounds of shady behavior.

If their choice to not to bend disrespects someone else though, that's a little problematic.

Saying the necromancer is always evil and in trouble also leads to problems. It can quickly turn into "Its okay for me to be the mean one because I'm the good guy!" even though from a meta perspective that's not really great.(not saying you said this, btw, BNW! Just adding something.)

5/5

DM Beckett wrote:
I'm not saying the quote has changed as much as it is being taken out outside of the context in which it was meant, and that the specific rules it was using have changed. Here are the related quotes from that page.

It's not about context. It's a blanket statement. Mike has just affirmed this. HTH HAND.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FallofCamelot wrote:
As a result at you have a responsibility to make sure that everybody at your table is going to be cool with you playing that. If you insist on playing that and don't compromise or offer to play another character then you are being unreasonable.

You say, "You have a responsibility to not offend characters who were built to be offended by legal choices."

I say, "You have a responsibility not to build characters who are offended by legal choices."

Dark Archive 2/5

Little note in regards to something written in one of the above posts: Just playing a necromancer is not bordering on crossing the "don't be a jerk" rule. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with playing a class that you happen to enjoy, and no one should have the right to tell someone else what they can and cannot play in PFS (so long as it is legal). Besides that, the society is not a good aligned organization. Nor does the decemvirate appear to condemn necromancy in any shape, way or form. Thus, people should be aware of the fact that their characters are going to encounter individuals that do skirt the line between neutral and evil, and so long as their alignment remains unchanged, everyone needs to cooperate.

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
As a result at you have a responsibility to make sure that everybody at your table is going to be cool with you playing that. If you insist on playing that and don't compromise or offer to play another character then you are being unreasonable.

You say, "You have a responsibility to not offend characters who were built to be offended by legal choices."

I say, "You have a responsibility not to build characters who are offended by legal choices."

I have a character that eats babies. Oh Mr Paladin? This offends you? Tough! Mwahaha! It's legal baby!

Dark Archive 2/5

Is it just me, or do people seem to continually retort with extremes rather than the matters at hand? There is a major difference between bringing a dead wolf back as a mindless skeleton, and making the decision to eat a baby. The rules in their present format might prevent someone from being able to play their character as a zealot that burns party members for daring to disagree with their narrowminded view of the world, but they do so for a very good reason; making Pathfinder Society as inclusive as possible. Yes, that does mean necromancers have to be tolerated. People might as well get used to it. It's been how many years now?

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
I'm not saying the quote has changed as much as it is being taken out outside of the context in which it was meant, and that the specific rules it was using have changed. Here are the related quotes from that page.
It's not about context. It's a blanket statement. Mike has just affirmed this. HTH HAND.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I think you are hearing what you want to hear, and not really what is being said. It was affirmed only that the original post, within it's context for Season 4 was still valid, and that they are thinking about changing it in the new Season 6 Guide, but that might not be true.

It does not change that in Season 5, the rule that Faction Heads receive the Alignment hit is no longer there. "Michael Brock wrote:

Faction missions are very specific as to what has to be accomplished. Anything that steps outside those bounds are not acceptable when discussing alignment infractions. I'm trusting the GMs (as Ive been asked on numerous occassions) to adjudicate accordingly. "

or that more directly related to animating undead, (outside of the Evil descriptor spell), the act itself is evil, regardless of an individual's alignment or personal view.

3/5

FallofCamelot wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
As a result at you have a responsibility to make sure that everybody at your table is going to be cool with you playing that. If you insist on playing that and don't compromise or offer to play another character then you are being unreasonable.

You say, "You have a responsibility to not offend characters who were built to be offended by legal choices."

I say, "You have a responsibility not to build characters who are offended by legal choices."

I have a character that eats babies. Oh Mr Paladin? This offends you? Tough! Mwahaha! It's legal baby!

I was with you until this level of extreme example was brought up.

sigh
Looks like I'm ignoring another thread until it dies down again.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
As a result at you have a responsibility to make sure that everybody at your table is going to be cool with you playing that. If you insist on playing that and don't compromise or offer to play another character then you are being unreasonable.

You say, "You have a responsibility to not offend characters who were built to be offended by legal choices."

I say, "You have a responsibility not to build characters who are offended by legal choices."

Yes I know the society is not a good organisation but because of OOC considerations you can't play an evil character. As a result you are going to see a lot of good characters and no evil characters.

I have previously said that this character will offend more people than it does not. As a result you should be prepared to mitigate your behaviour. Your choice is obviously controversial why are you surprised when it causes controversy?

Silver Crusade 3/5

The Beard wrote:
Is it just me, or do people seem to continually retort with extremes rather than the matters at hand? There is a major difference between bringing a dead wolf back as a mindless skeleton, and making the decision to eat a baby. The rules in their present format might prevent someone from being able to play their character as a zealot that burns party members for daring to disagree with their narrowminded view of the world, but they do so for a very good reason; making Pathfinder Society as inclusive as possible. Yes, that does mean necromancers have to be tolerated. People might as well get used to it. It's been how many years now?

I was making a joke.


FallofCamelot wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
As a result at you have a responsibility to make sure that everybody at your table is going to be cool with you playing that. If you insist on playing that and don't compromise or offer to play another character then you are being unreasonable.

You say, "You have a responsibility to not offend characters who were built to be offended by legal choices."

I say, "You have a responsibility not to build characters who are offended by legal choices."

I have a character that eats babies. Oh Mr Paladin? This offends you? Tough! Mwahaha! It's legal baby!

And then your promptly removed by the coordinator? That's a much different situation.

Grand Lodge 4/5

FallofCamelot wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
As a result at you have a responsibility to make sure that everybody at your table is going to be cool with you playing that. If you insist on playing that and don't compromise or offer to play another character then you are being unreasonable.

You say, "You have a responsibility to not offend characters who were built to be offended by legal choices."

I say, "You have a responsibility not to build characters who are offended by legal choices."

I have a character that eats babies. Oh Mr Paladin? This offends you? Tough! Mwahaha! It's legal baby!

Now this goes a bit far.

I have ONE character that would have issues. I've had my say and put out my thoughts on it. I don't play her. Would my other cleric(bard/cleric headed toward theurge) have I issues, certainly but she wouldn't be as outspoken as the cleric of Pharasma.

So I don't play one character, no worries.

Silver Crusade 3/5

MrSin wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
As a result at you have a responsibility to make sure that everybody at your table is going to be cool with you playing that. If you insist on playing that and don't compromise or offer to play another character then you are being unreasonable.

You say, "You have a responsibility to not offend characters who were built to be offended by legal choices."

I say, "You have a responsibility not to build characters who are offended by legal choices."

I have a character that eats babies. Oh Mr Paladin? This offends you? Tough! Mwahaha! It's legal baby!
And then your promptly removed by the coordinator? That's a much different situation.

Joke. Evidently not a funny one.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

The Beard wrote:
Is it just me, or do people seem to continually retort with extremes rather than the matters at hand? There is a major difference between bringing a dead wolf back as a mindless skeleton, and making the decision to eat a baby. The rules in their present format might prevent someone from being able to play their character as a zealot that burns party members for daring to disagree with their narrowminded view of the world, but they do so for a very good reason; making Pathfinder Society as inclusive as possible. Yes, that does mean necromancers have to be tolerated. People might as well get used to it. It's been how many years now?

I think it's more to do with "if generic rule A is true", then it "opens the door for idea B", than to show specific outrageous examples. This argument has been going on for a very, very long time.

Something I also want to point out is that being a Necromancer is not the same as creating Undead. A Cleric or Wizard Necromancer is someone that focuses in utilizing the School of necromancy, not necessarily someone that raises Undead. Nor does it mean that a non-Necromancer can not also raise undead. And actually someone that cast Speak With Dead is more of a necromancer than someone that raises the dead to unlife. Using Necromancy usually is not Evil. Creating undead universally is, and is also why every case of creating non-Evil Undead has been removed.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.

One key thing to remember is that just because a character is legal, does not mean it is suitable for the society. They don't just have someone detecting evil on initiation day and everyone who doesn't ping gets in.

And that applies to any extreme. It doesn't matter if you are a psychotic murdering barbarian, or a law-oppressive zealot paladin, or a society-hating hermit druid, or a necromancer that raises every fallen commoner as an undead. If you are unable to cooperate within the normal environments where the society operates without being in conflict with virtually every other agent, then you are not fit for service and realistically, the society would never accept you in the first place.

5/5

DM Beckett wrote:
or that more directly related to animating undead, (outside of the Evil descriptor spell), the act itself is evil, regardless of an individual's alignment or personal view.

Please provide a link to the source of that ruling.

If using the spell is not an evil action, which it isn't no matter how many times you try to argue that Mike's ruling doesn't mean exactly what it says, then why is the act itself evil?

If you have that in writing, please link it here. I will stand corrected. But from what I can see, the alignment rules do not say that.

5/5

FallofCamelot wrote:
I have a character that eats babies. Oh Mr Paladin? This offends you? Tough! Mwahaha! It's legal baby!

Cannibalism is explicitly prohibited, per Mike Brock. Therefore the baby is not legal. Therefore your analogy is not relevant to the conversation.

Maybe you could try it without resorting to reductio ad absurdum.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Master of Rhetoric wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
I have a character that eats babies. Oh Mr Paladin? This offends you? Tough! Mwahaha! It's legal baby!

Cannibalism is explicitly prohibited, per Mike Brock. Therefore the baby is not legal. Therefore your analogy is not relevant to the conversation.

Maybe you could try it without resorting to reductio ad absurdum.

For the third time

J.O.K.E.

Obviously people didn't read the crappy humour there. I apologise. I thought it was funny. It wasn't.

Moving on please.

151 to 200 of 306 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Is Destroying a Fellow Player's Raised Dead / Commanded Undead an action that Constitutes PVP in Society Play? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.