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


Pathfinder Society

201 to 250 of 306 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Dark Archive 2/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:

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.

Well, all this stuff plus the fact that the society routinely tells some of the people in its service to commit specific evil acts.

5/5

FallofCamelot wrote:
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.

Okay. Could you actually respond to my point, then? Why does the onus fall on the player who is utilizing a legal option, instead of the player who builds a character that will be offended by that?

Edit: Can an onus "fall?" Or does it only "rest?" It has to get there to rest, right? Uh ... you know what I mean.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Now I don't play PFS, but it seems to me that this is just a matter of players needing to compromise.

Look, if you're going to play a Paladin in Society play then you should think a little about compromises you could make to justify working with characters you might prefer not to work with. Equally if you're playing a Necromancer you should be thinking about compromises that can be offered when working with characters that don't like your methods.

An organisation like the Society is broad enough that most every character should be prepared for the fact that there are other members of that society that they would object to, and others that would object to them. Players in turn should have some ideas of how their character can justify working with people they object to and ideally have some areas they can compromise if the situation comes up.

Dark Archive 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Berik wrote:

Now I don't play PFS, but it seems to me that this is just a matter of players needing to compromise.

Look, if you're going to play a Paladin in Society play then you should think a little about compromises you could make to justify working with characters you might prefer not to work with. Equally if you're playing a Necromancer you should be thinking about compromises that can be offered when working with characters that don't like your methods.

An organisation like the Society is broad enough that most every character should be prepared for the fact that there are other members of that society that they would object to, and others that would object to them. Players in turn should have some ideas of how their character can justify working with people they object to and ideally have some areas they can compromise if the situation comes up.

And it's the guy that DOESN'T play PFS that manages to perfectly grasp the purpose of society play, while some of us seem to completely miss it at times. I approve of this post.


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

They have ruled out cannibalism out of hand, to the point of scrapping blood magic and blood drinking dhampir feats with it. Baby-eating is neither a serious contender nor a fair comparison.

I am playing a necromancer as perfect for Society as any could be- NOT bent on destroying all life with undead, NOT dedicated to animating every dead thing, but a seeker of arcane and forbidden lore, morally neutral (more or less, but NOT evil), willing to work with/learn from others, and driven to explore- this seems to coincide with Society goals.

If you play a necromancer or paladin or cleric or unicorn-wrangler who has similar interests- YOU ARE A PATHFINDER CANDIDATE. If you're overarching character goals forbid you to Explore, Report, and Cooperate, YOU ARE NOT A PATHFINDER CANDIDATE. That's simple enough, I think.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
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.

Okay. Could you actually respond to my point, then? Why does the onus fall on the player who is utilizing a legal option, instead of the player who builds a character that will be offended by that?

Edit: Can an onus "fall?" Or does it only "rest?" It has to get there to rest, right? Uh ... you know what I mean.

It's on both IMO. I've had a nationalist Qadiran (Qadirish?) Halfling in the same party as my Taldan Viscount. We found a way to work together. (I believe the phrase "please don't blow up my country" was used.)

My point though is that the option we are talking about, though legal, is going to be beyond the pale to a lot of characters. I have no problem with Necromancers but raising undead is emotive for a lot of characters. You should be aware of that if you are making this character.

If you want to play a guy who has minions there's a bunch of non controversial ways to do that, Conjurers, Summoners, Druids and even Ranger animal companions allow you to scratch that itch.

Creating undead is different. It's opposed by Pharasman followers, it's opposed by Andoran as the one of the worst impingements on freedom, it's obviously opposed by the Silver Crusade and every Good deity. That covers a lot of the PFS player base.

So basically you should not be surprised if you turn up at a table with at least one person for whom creating undead is a real problem. To then say "tough I'm doing it anyway" for me is jerk behaviour. Not serious jerk behaviour mind but still not exactly conducive to a friendly welcoming table.

For me working together and not being a jerk starts at character generation. If you create a character whose schtick is going to potentially upset a lot of people then that's fine but you should have the cognisance and sensitivity to mitigate the behaviour of your character to meet the beliefs of the group.

Working out a compromise is fine but said necromancer should be aware that his character is going to ruffle feathers. Being bull headed about it and refusing to recognise that your character may cause a problem is just as bad as playing a Paladin that smites everything "because it's evil."

Of course you should try to accommodate to someone playing this character. My Nagaji Prophet of Kalistrade wouldn't have a problem with undead but my Tengu Samurai would. If you turned up with Mr Necromancer I'd probably play the Nagaji for party cohesion purposes. In short I'll try my best to accommodate your character if you try your best to accommodate mine. Especially when our beliefs collide.

I'd just like to say that a point was made above that you could make a Silver Crusade undead creating necromancer. Well sure, technically you could but that doesn't mean that the Silver Crusade supports undead because of that. It's pretty obvious it doesn't.

Just as an aside as well, sorry if I'm coming across a bit aggressive or angry. I'm an English Cricket fan and a fan of Tottenham Hotspur. A quick Google search should show you exactly how bad a day I'm having... :(

Finally I believe an onus can both fall and rest. It probably rests to recover from the fall :)

Silver Crusade 2/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if a druid had sent her animal companion on ahead, to attack a fleeing enemy, would anyone here think that it would be acceptable for the party warrior to kill the animal companion in a situation analogous to Edenwaith's?

I support the deaths of any and all animal companions. :)

Silver Crusade 3/5

Berik wrote:
Now I don't play PFS,

Maybe you should :)

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
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.

I'm confused. Are you looking for a PFS ruling that states PFS uses the normal PF rules are that someone has spelled out that crating undead and casting Evil spells are actually well, evil? Just trying to have a polite, civilized discussion. :)

Spoiler:
Todd Stewart wrote:

Negative energy is not evil. The negative energy plane is not evil. (Likewise positive energy isn't good, and the positive energy plane isn't good either).

Within Golarion's cosmos, the act of using negative energy to create undead is evil (with some rare/unique exceptions based on type of undead, manner of creation, circumstance, etc).

HERE

Spoiler:
"James Jacobs Creative Director Jul 5, 2009, 06:56 PM
Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor. Same goes for Good or Lawful or Chaotic. That means that certain classes can't really cast them at all (divine classes of different alignments), but that other classes (arcane spellcasters, for the most part) can cast them as much as they like. But casting alignment spells a lot will and should turn the caster toward that alignment, unless the GM doesn't care about alignment and doesn't enforce such changes, in which case the GM should let EVERY player at the table know that alignment doesn't impact the game so that players who do play as if it does have a chance to adjust their play styles as appropriate. Removing the alignment types of certain spells has implications, though, and before you do so make sure that no one in your group is planning on building a character who uses the alignemnt descriptors in their character build!"

HERE

Spoiler:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I don't see the confusion here, folks.

If you have a moral code against murdering infants, whether that is a code you defined or the code of the deity you worship, you aren't allowed to murder infants, and you aren't allowed to cast a spell that requires you to murder an infant to activate it.

Murderous Cure
School conjuration (healing) [evil]; Level cleric 2, druid 2
Components V, S, M (corpse of an infant you personally murdered)
This spell functions as remove disease, except as noted above.

The above is an evil spell. Casting it is an evil act. If you are a good cleric or a neutral cleric of a good deity, you can't cast this spell, because it's evil.

If Ike Infantkiller creates a scroll of murderous cure, he killed an infant to create that scroll. Using that scroll is against your moral code because its creation involves committing an evil act. Ditto if he created a wand, or a mace, or a wondrous item that uses that spell: a spell partially powered by the murder of an infant. If your moral code doesn't allow you to murder infants, you're not allowed to use an item created by murdering infants.

The "I'm not the one who murdered the infant" excuse doesn't cut it... you're gaining an advantage or power based on the murder of infants. If you're playing poker, and you know the cards are marked, and you use those marks to win, it doesn't matter that you aren't the one who marked the cards--you're still cheating.

If you're a good cleric, it's against your moral code to commit evil acts. Casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. Using an [evil] item is an evil act. Whether or not you invented the spell or created the item, using it is an evil act because the item's power comes from an evil act.

HERE

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

I had almost forgot what City did to Spurs today and you had to bring it back up. Sigh.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

FallofCamelot wrote:

Desecrating a corpse is.

...but making one is apparently 100% legit. :p

Silver Crusade 3/5

Michael Brock wrote:
I had almost forgot what City did to Spurs today and you had to bring it back up. Sigh.

Sorry boss.

If it helps what Australia did to England in the Cricket today was way worse...

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
I'm confused. Are you looking for a PFS ruling that states PFS uses the normal PF rules are that someone has spelled out that crating undead and casting Evil spells are actually well, evil? Just trying to have a polite, civilized discussion. :)

Oh ... my God.

Seriously. Yes, I am aware that Evil spells are evil in standard Pathfinder. I am also aware that PFS follows RAW unless otherwise specified.

It has been otherwise specified.

To make this point to you, I even went and made another thread asking if this was still the case, upon which the campaign coordinator immediately commented to clarify that yes, it was still the case.

Why are you just refusing to accept this?

Grand Lodge 4/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
I'm confused. Are you looking for a PFS ruling that states PFS uses the normal PF rules are that someone has spelled out that crating undead and casting Evil spells are actually well, evil? Just trying to have a polite, civilized discussion. :)

Oh ... my God.

Seriously. Yes, I am aware that Evil spells are evil in standard Pathfinder. I am also aware that PFS follows RAW unless otherwise specified.

It has been otherwise specified.

To make this point to you, I even went and made another thread asking if this was still the case, upon which the campaign coordinator immediately commented to clarify that yes, it was still the case.

Why are you just refusing to accept this?

His argument is actually slightly different this time. He's claiming that the creation of undead is evil, even if the spells used in it aren't.

5/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
His argument is actually slightly different this time. He's claiming that the creation of undead is evil, even if the spells used in it aren't.

Is he? Spoilers #2 and #3 are exclusively about evil descriptor spells, and Spoiler #1 isn't actually a quote from a Paizo employee, so ... I'm not sure.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

FallofCamelot wrote:

If it helps what Australia did to England in the Cricket today was way worse...

No way, we are enjoying it immensely. :)

Shadow Lodge 4/5

You might need to take a break and step away, because obviously we are talking about two different things. Again, was only trying to have a polite discussion and I disagree with your assertion as anything except within the context it was written.

You asked is creating undead = evil. Answered. It is.

You are suggesting that
Q: Is casting an evil spell for a Faction Head's mission, (which at the time stated that the Faction Head and not the player got the alignment hit) an evil act?

A: No, doing an evil act for a Faction Mission/Head does not constitute an evil act unless it violates a core tenet, code, or other issue.

means

Casting an Evil spell does not ever constitute an evil act

despite the related quote taken directly from the same thread and discussion saying "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."

In essence, you are reading a ruling made within a specific circumstance to say it applies at all times, (despite itself including stipulations) and I read the exact same ruling as only applying within the context it was made. I think at this point though, we are just arguing to argue, which was not the point.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
Why are you just refusing to accept this?
His argument is actually slightly different this time. He's claiming that the creation of undead is evil, even if the spells used in it aren't.

I honestly anticipated if I quoted JJ and a few other too much I would get the "but it's not official in PFS", so I avoided it. :)

Dark Archive 2/5

All right then, here's my question. If casters of animate dead should be penalized for casting animate dead, why is the only penalization allowed already done by the rules by way of its obscene price? I mean, blood money gives you a really good work around, but you get the idea.

Sczarni 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@DM Beckett
While your posts provide nothing but truth in regards to general state of evil spells and creation of undead, I believe it's safe to assume that Mike's statement and Guide include and say that creation of undead isn't considered evil per PFS campaign rules.

You could claim further that creation of undead and casting of a evil spell are two different things, but I believe that you are pulling yourself by straws here. I might be wrong tho, but I believe that this is safer bet here.

Adam

Silver Crusade 3/5

Shifty wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:

If it helps what Australia did to England in the Cricket today was way worse...

No way, we are enjoying it immensely. :)

I'm sure you are. Surprised you remember what winning feels like.

5/5

Okay, I'm going to try this one more time.

DM Beckett wrote:

You are suggesting that

Q: Is casting an evil spell for a Faction Head's mission, (which at the time stated that the Faction Head and not the player got the alignment hit) an evil act?

A: No, doing an evil act for a Faction Mission/Head does not constitute an evil act unless it violates a core tenet, code, or other issue.

means

Casting an Evil spell does not ever constitute an evil act

No.

No, I am not.

Not even a little bit.

What I am suggesting is that Mike Brock saying "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" means that "casting a spell with the 'evil' descriptor does not constitute an evil act in and of itself."

Because that's what it means.

You can tell, because that's what it says.

And he even clarified that again this morning.

Quote:
You asked is creating undead = evil. Answered. It is.

The only quote you have provided to demonstrate that is not from a Paizo employee.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

The reason I quoted Todd was that as a Contributor, (I'm not sure I agree that they are not a real employee), is that even if not, the products they do contribute would be edited to fall in line with Paizo's world. Likewise, SKR's post I quoted specifically for the last line "using it is an evil act because the item's power comes from an evil act".

So, we can agree so far that in PF casting an Evil spell is an Evil act, but in PFS, even if we disagree on exactly how that applies, it works a bit differently. Yes?

Spoiler:
James Jacobs wrote:

As mentioned above... zombies and skeletons are evil. They're mindless, but the necromantic energies that create them compel them to destroy the living if they're not being used for other purposes. They have evil alignments as a result. And the concept of creating undead itself is viewed as evil by all civilized societies—and is supported by the fact that undead are not found on the good aligned outer planes, and are not used in good temples.

The ONLY kind of undead in the Pathfinder RPG that can be not evil at this point is the ghost—but they're somewhat unique in the way they form and what they do.

All other undead are evil. Including zombies and skeletons.

And as a result, all spells that create undead have the Evil descriptor.

Animating the dead is NOT the same as animating an object. You can use animate objects to animate a dead body; it has the stats for an animated object, though, NOT an undead skeleton or zombie, because the force that animates things with animate objects is unaligned magical energy; the force that animates undead is negative energy and evil spirit power. That distinction is something that is really interesting and unique, and someone who uses lots of animate object spells to create animated objects out of dead bodies would be a VERY interesting thing to explore in a book BECAUSE it's a way to make dead bodies do stuff without using evil magic.

Spoiler:
James Jacobs wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
The problem here is the idea that a mindless automaton can have an alignment. It shouldn't. It is mindless, and thus completely incapable of moral judgment. As far as being animated to do violent deeds, well so what? Animated objects, golems, heck, even fireballs, are used to violent ends and that doesn't make them evil. Violence is not inherently evil. A zombie may hunger and hunt, but then, so do animals, and animals, even the most violent ones, are neutral.

I actually agree. I fought to give skeletons and zombies an Intelligence of 3 OR to make them true neutral, but for many reasons (most of which rhyme with "compatibility with 3.5") that wasn't really an option. So I added the bit of flavor text to both that talks about how while they're mindless, their necromantic energy causes them to be evil. It's obviously not a perfect solution (if it were, this thread wouldn't exist), but I do think that it justifies their alignment and mindless state enough to make it make a little bit of sense while maintaining compatibility with 3.5.

In 45 years (hopefully not that soon) when we do Pathfinder 2nd Edition, this is something I'd like to revisit and perhaps change.

Classic Horrors:
The Nature of Evil
“Skeletons and zombies are evil, even though they are
mindless. This is because undeath itself is a naturally evil
force, just as fire is naturally hot. While life and death exist
in a cycle, neither is inherently good or evil, for creatures
must die to feed others and make room for new life,
which in turn must die to make room for even newer life.
Undeath, by contrast, is a perversion of the natural order;
an endless state that is neither life nor death, and a power
that only corrupts and consumes. Vampires and brainhungry
zombies cannot create new life or sustain other life,
they can only destroy life and propagate their kind until
the world is filled with undying predators and no prey.
Even things built with the power of undeath are merely
perversions and mockeries of life, whether an animate
corpse or an intelligent palace made of bones.
“This is not to say that all necromancers are evil or the
school of necromantic magic is inherently evil. Necromancy
spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life
force—the magic of death and the magic of undeath are
two different things. A circle of death spell uses the power of
death to snuff out life, but it is no more evil than stabbing
a creature with a sword. Some argue that magic is just a
tool, and how a tool is used determines whether the act is
good or evil, but a counterargument holds that some tools
are specifically designed to be used for evil, like implements
of torture. Worse, some tools are inherently evil, and want
to be used for evil. If fire always burned the innocent and
spared the guilty, fire would be evil. Undeath is an inherently
evil source of power, designed to corrupt and destroy life for
no purpose other than hatred and because it can. There are
exceptional, intelligent undead that are not evil, just as there
are extremely rare demons and devils who become good,
but evil is the norm because their essence is evil.”

Also:
The walking dead have little impact on their environment,
unless ordered to scour an area by their creators. Although
unintelligent, they do seem to possess an instinctive hatred
for the living, and usually attack even if not given the order
to do so. As undead, skeletons and zombies have no need of
food, but unsettling reports continue to surface of zombies
devouring the brains of those they kill, though the reasons
behind such disturbing behavior are not clear.

Bestiary:
Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought
to unlife through foul magic. While most skeletons are
mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning
imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning
that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor.
Alignment: Always neutral evil.

Bestiary:
Zombies are the animated corpses of dead creatures,
forced into foul unlife via necromantic magic like animate
dead. While the most commonly encountered zombies are
slow and tough, others possess a variety of traits, allowing
them to spread disease or move with increased speed.
Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do
little more than follow orders. When left unattended,
zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures
to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed,
having no regard for their own safety.
Although capable of following orders, zombies are
more often unleashed into an area with no command
other than to kill living creatures. As a result, zombies
are often encountered in packs, wandering around places
the living frequent, looking for victims.
Alignment: Always neutral evil.

Now, it's your job to find some rules, in either PF or PFS that show how a spell that creates and introduces something evil, who's only goal is to murder unless you stop them from doing it temporarily, is not evil.

Dark Archive 2/5

The spell has an evil descriptor for a reason. It's definitely evil. However, utilizing the dead as a soldier against <insert big bad here> is not currently considered an evil act within PFS. Casting the spells will not result in an alignment shift at this time.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
I say, "You have a responsibility not to build characters who are offended by legal choices."

"I say, 'You have a responsibility not to build paladins, lawful good characters, neutral good characters, chaotic good characters, followers of Erastil, Iomedae, Sarenrae, Torag, Shelyn, Desna, Cayden Cailean, or Pharasma, or members of the Andoran and Silver Crusade factions.'"

Dark Archive 2/5

Dave Setty wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
I say, "You have a responsibility not to build characters who are offended by legal choices."

"I say, 'You have a responsibility not to build paladins, lawful good characters, neutral good characters, chaotic good characters, followers of Erastil, Iomedae, Sarenrae, Torag, Shelyn, Desna, Cayden Cailean, or Pharasma, or members of the Andoran and Silver Crusade factions.'"

Having a good alignment most definitely should not automatically mean your character should go BURN IT NOW when animate dead is cast. There's good, then there's being a jackass. Even following a deity that frowns upon undeath doesn't necessarily mean they want you to lynch the necromancer that just saved your life with a mindless skeleton or two. Well, Pharasma is an exception to this, but you get the idea. Very few classes have any excuse whatsoever to react in an "extremely" negative way. Disgusted? Sure, but unless you're a paladin with an oath against undeath or a follower of Pharasma, it won't justify what a lot of people have been calling for.

5/5 5/55/55/5

The Beard wrote:
Having a good alignment most definitely should not automatically mean your character should go BURN IT NOW when animate dead is cast. There's good, then there's being a jackass

Calling other people jackasses is Not. Helping.

Its a perfectly valid way of playing good. (just not the only way)

Shadow Lodge 4/5

I would probably add Eristal, Iomedae, and Sarenrae to the auto destroy undead list, too.

Eristal is both about community and also one of the main nature and Green Faith gods.

Iomedae of all these, probably the least of all, but Iomedae's faith already has a massive glaring issue with the Society that gets hand waved. That aside, I could reasonably see one of her Cleric/Paladins maybe trying to look the other way at a greater evil. It would incredibly meta, though.

Sarenrae specifically calls Undead out as among the irredeemable that should be destroyed on sight, and not negotiated with.

5/5

Dave Setty wrote:

"I say, 'You have a responsibility not to build paladins, lawful good characters, neutral good characters, chaotic good characters, followers of Erastil, Iomedae, Sarenrae, Torag, Shelyn, Desna, Cayden Cailean, or Pharasma, or members of the Andoran and Silver Crusade factions.'"

Or you could just not be a jerk about playing them.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
The Beard wrote:
Having a good alignment most definitely should not automatically mean your character should go BURN IT NOW when animate dead is cast. There's good, then there's being a jackass

Calling other people jackasses is Not. Helping.

Its a perfectly valid way of playing good. (just not the only way)

Far from the best and probably not okay for organized play though.

5/5

DM Beckett wrote:
Now, it's your job to find some rules, in either PF or PFS that show how a spell that creates and introduces something evil, who's only goal is to murder unless you stop them from doing it temporarily, is not evil.

...................................

I have quoted that rule at you about a thousand times.

And if you really don't grasp that, I'm just not even going to bother anymore.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Dave Setty wrote:

"I say, 'You have a responsibility not to build paladins, lawful good characters, neutral good characters, chaotic good characters, followers of Erastil, Iomedae, Sarenrae, Torag, Shelyn, Desna, Cayden Cailean, or Pharasma, or members of the Andoran and Silver Crusade factions.'"

Or you could just not be a jerk about playing them.

Everyone's got a different definition and threshold for jerk, so that rule and concept is useless when scaled up.

I think I would certainly ask Mr. Necromancer to stick to debuffs if I were playing my cleric of Torag. If he refuses, then I guess trouble will ensue.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Dave Setty wrote:

"I say, 'You have a responsibility not to build paladins, lawful good characters, neutral good characters, chaotic good characters, followers of Erastil, Iomedae, Sarenrae, Torag, Shelyn, Desna, Cayden Cailean, or Pharasma, or members of the Andoran and Silver Crusade factions.'"

Or you could just not be a jerk about playing them.
Everyone's got a different definition and threshold for jerk, so that rule and concept is useless when scaled up.

If you prevent someone else from playing their character because you've chosen to not tolerate them ... we can't all agree this is being a jerk?

Silver Crusade 2/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Dave Setty wrote:

"I say, 'You have a responsibility not to build paladins, lawful good characters, neutral good characters, chaotic good characters, followers of Erastil, Iomedae, Sarenrae, Torag, Shelyn, Desna, Cayden Cailean, or Pharasma, or members of the Andoran and Silver Crusade factions.'"

Or you could just not be a jerk about playing them.
Everyone's got a different definition and threshold for jerk, so that rule and concept is useless when scaled up.
If you prevent someone else from playing their character because you've chosen to not tolerate them ... we can't all agree this is being a jerk?

No. There's nothing to stop large animal companions from clogging up the combat so my dwarf fighter can't even engage.

I suppose I could always leave the table. Seems to be an annoyingly common solution to grey area disputes in PFS.


David Bowles wrote:
I think I would certainly ask Mr. Necromancer to stick to debuffs if I were playing my cleric of Torag. If he refuses, then I guess trouble will ensue.

Why does there have to be trouble though?

5/5 Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Disclaimer - I do not have a necromancer.

I agree with the sentiment that players shouldn't create PCs that will be offended by other legally allowed classes and other game choices.

Even codes that do not like the creation of undead have some flexibility regarding how the followers of that code react to things.

Part of the entry on Pharasma, by SKR, in AP 44, Carrion Crown AP, Trial of the Beast wrote:
The church despises the undead as abominations to the natural order, and all priests follow the church’s teachings about undead without question; creating undead is forbidden, and controlling existing undead is frowned upon, even by evil Pharasmin priests.

If the Church of Pharasma only frowns upon it's own priest controlling undead - how can it state that undead must be destroyed immediately?

Paladins are allowed to work with "Evil" if it will aid in the fight against greater evil. Yes, they can't do so long term, but short term they can (say, the length of a scenario).

You also can't say that raising undead is considered an evil act in the civilized world, as there are countries with long histories that openly have undead present (Ustalav, Geb, Orision to name a few).

The good aligned churches, paladins, etc.. that do not like undead (or diabolists for that matter), should be working towards redeeming the necromancer, or focusing on the greater good that the PFS does - how many scenarios deal with the destruction of powerful undead, demons, etc..?

In the original post, I think that the GM should have had the undead mount stop and wait for clarification from it's creator if one of the creator's allies was protecting it's target - this should tie in with the fact that the raised creatures don't attack the necromancer's allies, even if they are part of the hated living.

And I too wonder why the necromancer didn't mount up and ride the undead mount.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa

MrSin wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I think I would certainly ask Mr. Necromancer to stick to debuffs if I were playing my cleric of Torag. If he refuses, then I guess trouble will ensue.
Why does there have to be trouble though?

I am wondering that as well.

In the Shattered Star write up of Torag, undead are not even mentioned.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Or you could just not be a jerk about playing them.

Fighter: "Like most people, I find creation of undead both horrifying and offensive to my faith."

Cleric: "There are 86 third level cleric spells allowed by the Pathfinder Society, and I have the ability to prepare literally every last one of them. I know, I'll pick Animate Dead!"

Silver Crusade 2/5

It's just not something I see my lawful good cleric of Torag being okay with. I guess this would probably be considered pvp, so I would just recuse myself or play another character.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa

David Bowles wrote:
It's just not something I see my lawful good cleric of Torag being okay with. I guess this would probably be considered pvp, so I would just recuse myself or play another character.

Your cleric wouldn't see any benefit over trying to convert (or redeem) the necromancer?

Or in trying to limit their negative impact on things?

Isn't there a saying about that, something like:
All evil needs to flourish is for good men to do nothing (or turn a blind eye)? or something like that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mistwalker wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
It's just not something I see my lawful good cleric of Torag being okay with. I guess this would probably be considered pvp, so I would just recuse myself or play another character.

Your cleric wouldn't see any benefit over trying to convert (or redeem) the necromancer?

Or in trying to limit their negative impact on things?

Isn't there a saying about that, something like:
All evil needs to flourish is for good men to do nothing (or turn a blind eye)? or something like that?

alternatively, view it from a meta-perspective. Lots of people in PFS play those kinds of characters. May as well play with them, might be great guys.

Silver Crusade 2/5

In a homebrew perhaps, but not in the PFS format. In homebrew, I'd likely try to kill the necromancer,though.

My cleric of Torag's idea of limiting their negative impact would be crushing them with a hammer, channeling them to death, or summoning celestial X to dispose of them.

My magus obviously wouldn't care, and my fighter would complain but go along. My undead hunting ranger who hates them with all his soul, however, would also be problematic.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa

Dave Setty wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Or you could just not be a jerk about playing them.

Fighter: "Like most people, I find creation of undead both horrifying and offensive to my faith."

Cleric: "There are 86 third level cleric spells allowed by the Pathfinder Society, and I have the ability to prepare literally every last one of them. I know, I'll pick Animate Dead!"

I have yet to hear any player have their PC make such statements at the table, before, during or just after the briefing.

Someone who is playing a necromancer does not have a stamp on their forehead advertising it. So does your fighter say such things at the start of every mission? Also, which religion is it?

Also, please note that there are only 31 3rd level cleric spells in the core. Assuming that all players have copies of all of the Paizo source material is presuming a bit much.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:

In a homebrew perhaps, but not in the PFS format. In homebrew, I'd likely try to kill the necromancer,though.

My cleric of Torag's idea of limiting their negative impact would be crushing them with a hammer, channeling them to death, or summoning celestial X to dispose of them.

My magus obviously wouldn't care, and my fighter would complain but go along. My undead hunting ranger who hates them with all his soul, however, would also be problematic.

As you are the one creating the personalities, don't you have some responsibilities to create PCs that can work with other pathfinders, even if you find their choices distasteful?

It would also seem to beg the question of why individuals with those personalities would be pathfinders in the first place, as it is no secret that you will be working with all kinds of people, and that you are not allowed to kill them?

Silver Crusade 2/5

I agree with the stamp on head part mist, which is why some of my characters would have to recuse themselves.


David Bowles wrote:
I agree with the stamp on head part mist, which is why some of my characters would have to recuse themselves.

Rescue themselves? Like you'd let another PC die on purpose? Those are other people's characters!

Silver Crusade 2/5

No recuse. As in leave due to conflict of interests.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa

David Bowles wrote:
I agree with the stamp on head part mist, which is why some of my characters would have to recuse themselves.

I respect your choice in doing so. And the fact that it seems that you do not blame the necromancer for "causing" you to do so.

I have issues with the perception that some build their characters in such a way that there will be problems with other PCs, and then lay all of the blame on the other player/PC.

Dark Archive 2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sadly, the blame game is most often one that the necromancer finds himself on the losing end of. Why? His character does not happen to agree with <insert deity here>'s point of view, but it's okay for <insert deity here>'s followers to go around murdering people left and right.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

FallofCamelot wrote:
I'm sure you are. Surprised you remember what winning feels like.

See that's just it, we don't remember, so it's like discovering it all over again and we are summoning unicorns and rainbows n' stuff.

But not summoning undead; that would be controversial :p

201 to 250 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.