|
Alright PFS Gamers I am going to to throw the following player interaction (incident) out to see how varied the thoughts are on this subject.
Scenario: A group of 4 PFS players and a GM have met up to play in a standard PFS scenario. The players range from levels 3 to 5 and include a Dwarven Warrior (4), Human Rogue (3), Human Inquisitor of Phasmara(4) and a Tiefling Necromancer (5). So in the pre-adventure meet up the party has a chance to interact and discuss who they are and what their abilities are. The Tiefling describes himself as, "a master of undeath" to which the Inquisitor replies, "Phasmara rebukes such black necromancy and you will be best served in practicing only those magics which will not result in her final retribution." (or something like that). The Necromancer agrees and the party is off. Then the drama begins, after fighting their third (optional) encounter the party has suffered greatly, and the Rogue is KIA. The Necromancer, then casts Animate Lesser Undead on a human corpse and the drama starts! After some bickering at the table, the party agrees to continue on to the final encounter (for the Inquisitor-only because he felt honor bound to finish)- the Necromancer with his zombie in tow. So the final encounter ensues and the remaining 3 characters are bashed hard. The Inquisitor proceeds to only heal himself and the Dwarf, and makes the Necromancer rely on his own devices which are soon exhausted. The combat ends with the Dwarf and Inquisitor left standing... The Necro is at -6 hit points and not stabilizing. The Necromancers player beseeches the Inquisitors player to heal him or at least stabilize him and the Inquisitor replies "no." The Dwarf tries to help to no avail. As the rounds tick down, the Necro bleeds out. Needless to say tempers are high from the person playing the Necromancer who states something to the effect of 'you're not playing PFS right'. The GM appeared at a loss and simply stated, "He told you" and "I can't make him heal you." The GM who began to second guess himself sometime later asked me what I thought and I told him I thought he handled it well given the players early discussions and the role-playing aspect of the Inquisitor character. Another GM advised that this type of 'in-game BS only goes to destroy PFS' and the GM in question should have worked harder to resolve the issue (basically twisting the arm of the Inquisitors player to heal the Necro character). I disagreed- sometimes s@## happens and its only a game. What do you all think?
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
One further, Pharasma doesn't like undead, however she has a ton of necromancers as her followers.
It wasn't her inquistors place to judge who dies. That belongs solely to Pharasma. So the player who let that necromancer die is basically a dick.
I disagree, and strongly. From the Pathfinder Wiki (original source Gods and Magic):
Worshipers and Clergy
Many of Pharasma's worshipers are those closely aligned with either burgeoning life or terminating death. These include midwives, grave diggers, and morticians. Her priests are typically clerics, diviners, and necromancers that choose not to create undead. Her followers view the undead with hatred and consider them a great abomination. Pharasmins view putting the undead to rest as a holy duty. The creation of undead is outlawed, and commanding undead rather than destroying them is deeply frowned upon as well.
And from Inner Sea Gods, p.120:
Pharasmin inquisitors hunt down the undead and those who seek to create such monstrosities, but all priests have a solemn duty to oppose such abominations when they find them.
It is a bit more severe than 'Pharasma doesn't like undead.' The necromancers that follow the god are 'white necromancers' (ISG p. 118) who don't raise the undead.
According to the OP, the necromancer agreed to not raise the undead, and then went ahead and did it anyways. This is the violation of the 'don't be a jerk' rule. The Inquisitor didn't kill the Necromancer, so there was no PVP violation. He did watch to see if the Necromancer was being called to the Boneyard, and didn't interfere with what his Goddess was going to do. No atonement is necessary because the Necromancer was one of the ones the Inquisitor is supposed to hunt down.
OOC, this was discussed beforehand. If that agreement had been followed, I think the problems would not have happened.
Probably it would have been for the best to not have a Pharasmin Inquisitor and a Black Necromancer in the same party. I know I try to choose a character that can work with the others at the table, and I have switched to another character to avoid problems.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, except that as a pathfinder you agree to explore cooperate and report. The pharasma inquistor is not cooperating. If this was the world, I'm pretty sure he'd be tossed out by the society.
He was the only person with an issue. But I'd invite him to join my necromancer who has a shadow familiar. I'm pretty sure an accident or two would be to follow.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All that drama over a lousy 1 hd human skeleton or zombie addition to an APL 4 party.
As The Fox said, neither player is without blame. I am not sure how the players feel about it, but as the GM I would have made it clear that this kind of behavior isn't exactly welcome in PFS.
Other players might choose to avoid the tables where those players play because of that event.
|
|
All that drama over a lousy 1 hd human skeleton or zombie addition to an APL 4 party.
As The Fox said, neither player is without blame. I am not sure how the players feel about it, but as the GM I would have made it clear that this kind of behavior isn't exactly welcome in PFS.
Other players might choose to avoid the tables where those players play because of that event.
I wasn't there, but the impression I had from the GM in question was that the Necromancer player 'raised dead' to push the Inquisitors button(s) so to speak. The GM even pointed out that earlier in the game, the Inquisitor had used his own wand of cure light wounds to heal the characters in the party, including the Necromancer. As I stated earlier, I think the Inquisitors actions were within the realm of acceptable play. Would I have healed him if I was in the Inquisitors shoes? Maybe... Would I have required some kind of atonement or repentance (whether or not it could be enforced is another question) is more likely within my own play style. Perhaps having the Necromancer pay the burial costs of their fallen comrade would have sufficed. But as a GM, it was in that area, of if the player wants to play it the way he did I won't fuss over it.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville
|
I think he violated the don't be a jerk rule. My own Cleric of Pharasma would have healed the dying necromancer. Although more than just what he needed to live would not have happened.
I had one Necromancer try and tell me that it wouldn't require an atonement if I used a negative channel to heal his zombie that he planned to animate during the session.
So what if the tiefling pushed his buttons. A stabilize and a few CLWs would have been a good way to said 'I told you so.'
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also believe the Inquisitor broke the don't be a jerk rule. Going beyond the game for a second think of all the effort and hard work that other person put into their character on a race which now requires a boon to play. He could have just as easily roleplayed that situation as "My goddess doesn't approve of your actions, but I won't let a fellow Pathfinder die because (insert any reason; selfish, benevolent or otherwise."
Honestly when the other people in your party are begging you to help and it's completely within your control to do so at no risk to yourself and you say "No" something has gone wrong at the table.
I think the GM of the table should have placed a stronger emphasis on cooperation and how it would look to that Pathfinder's Venture Captain that he watched his ally die.
You know at the end of the day this is a game and people should make attempts to be friendly toward each other. I know I would be upset at this situation (I am just from hearing it), would probably avoid this other player in the future, and probably tell others to do the same. Nothing good for the community could have come from this interaction.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know.. I feel like telling the Necromancer he can't prepare and cast Animate Dead because you follow Pharasma is like telling a Kitsune enchanter not to use charms and compulsions because you're from Andoran. Sure you can do it in character that's fine but as soon as it's anything more than 'I disapprove of your characters beliefs!' *nudge nudge It's all good* it has gone too far most likely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know.. I feel like telling the Necromancer he can't prepare and cast Animate Dead because you follow Pharasma is like telling a Kitsune enchanter not to use charms and compulsions because you're from Andoran. Sure you can do it in character that's fine but as soon as it's anything more than 'I disapprove of your characters beliefs!' *nudge nudge It's all good* it has gone too far most likely.
I don't think that is the same thing. It is more like telling a Kitsune enchanter they couldn't use a few specific enchantment spell. Necromancy school is more then making undead.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "don't be a jerk" rule trumps in character "Religious Tenants".
I completely agree with Ragoz, you can't dictate another player to play his character in a different way because your own player character would have a problem with it.
Demanding another player to actively change his play in favor of your own passively accepting it happening is very selfish. You can always find a reason as to why this specific case in an exception to the usual. Note, there is a distinction between the person requiring an active change and a passive "let it happen".
Also, I think the PFS in-game tenants should trump personal tenants as well: "Explore, Report, Cooperate!"
You should not play a character that wishes to have nothing to do with anything outside their room.
You should not play a character that does not report back to HQ.
You should not play a character that does not wish to cooperate with the team that has been selected by their superiors.
It is against the spirit of the pathfinder society.
|
|
Charms and compulsions such as Charm Person and Suggestion tend to be the bread and butter of such builds much like Animate Dead would be for someone who has probably built to control undead. Either way telling the other person they can't use an aspect of their character is a bit rude and then letting them die intentionally is more so.
|
|
This was stated by someone else in another thread but bears repeating.
It is no secret that the Pathfinder Society recruits from all areas of the alignment spectrum and the agents often work in teams. Anyone who joins the Society would know this as well as the importance of the mantra "Explore, Report, Cooperate".
With this in mind, why would anyone join the Society if they know their religious (or other) convictions would just get them, at best, kicked out? Why even associate with the Society?
Now there are plenty of reasons why any religion would make exceptions to have members in the Society. The Society has a lot of resources and international sway. Perhaps they just want to keep an eye on them. Use your imagination. This has the added bonus of having a Society compatible character.
Granted, cooperation goes both ways. (e.g. The party necromancer agreeing to allow the destruction of raised undead after the mission.)
Not healing fellow party members because "that is what my character would do" not only violates "don't be a jerk" but (in a non-PFS kind of way) would probably give the Society reason to retaliate or at least boot him out.
That said I doubt this post says anything new or profound and outside of PFS, YMMV.
|
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I would have just stabilized him, and then played weekend at bernies with him.
"Oh.. whats that? You don't like this? Someone having complete control over your body ? Huh. I wonder who feels like this all the time...
Whats best for the team: This denies the character any agency at all and makes the characters start to look like the same, undifferentiated mass of "pathfinder"
What would my character do: Even when NOT being used as an excuse to be an ass can lead to some problems with the other players at the table, who really are more important than the imaginary characters we come up with. Also if you tick them off, your character effectively ceases to exist..
You get the best balance of role play and party cohesion when you ask "what might my character do" and make a list, rather than either of the two. Off of the list you pick something that doesn't really tick off the other players but still shows a bit of your character. There's usually something you can do to let your personality show through and keep everyone alive.
|
I am going to take the opposite (and very obviously unpopular) side on this. With the 'don't be a jerk' and the non PVP rules of Pathfinder, it is very hard to play a character with any sort of conviction in anything but RP capacity. The above example is a middle of the road one to everyone who is not this player, so it is easy to make assumptions. Let's take it a little further.
Situation:
Group made up of a Good Cleric, Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian. Barbarian is coup de grace anything that falls that is not a PC, even friendly NPC's and immediately attacking everything in sight. The GM warns him that this is an evil act, but he continues. The Cleric has no way to stop this sort of wasting all his healing on these downed foes, not knowing if said barbarian is going to just kill them again. He does not have to pay for an atonement until the end, so even if the GM decides to shift his alighment, there is still nothing the group could do in the short term. The barbarian falls, the Cleric does not heal him, he dies. Is the Cleric being a jerk?
That is an extreme case; and the Barbarian is also guilty of being a jerk; but what choice do we have other than impotently sitting there threatening actions we can not take to play a character that is good (or not so good) besides withholding healing?
S.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion this is a failure of the event organizer as much as of both players involved.
It could be there was only one table but with just four players I wouldn't think so but my point being..
The event organizer has no control over people being jerks at the tables, the only people with that control are the "jerks" themselves.
1 table events are very common, due to space, community, and more probably willing GMs. To try and pass blame for someone's bad behavior on to the people who arrange and probably GM these games is insulting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to take the opposite (and very obviously unpopular) side on this. With the 'don't be a jerk' and the non PVP rules of Pathfinder, it is very hard to play a character with any sort of conviction in anything but RP capacity. The above example is a middle of the road one to everyone who is not this player, so it is easy to make assumptions. Let's take it a little further.
Situation:
Group made up of a Good Cleric, Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian. Barbarian is coup de grace anything that falls that is not a PC, even friendly NPC's and immediately attacking everything in sight. The GM warns him that this is an evil act, but he continues. The Cleric has no way to stop this sort of wasting all his healing on these downed foes, not knowing if said barbarian is going to just kill them again. He does not have to pay for an atonement until the end, so even if the GM decides to shift his alighment, there is still nothing the group could do in the short term. The barbarian falls, the Cleric does not heal him, he dies. Is the Cleric being a jerk?
That is an extreme case; and the Barbarian is also guilty of being a jerk; but what choice do we have other than impotently sitting there threatening actions we can not take to play a character that is good (or not so good) besides withholding healing?
S.
Bolded the faulty premise.
"Sir, please stand up and leave this table. Nobody wants you to play this game with us anymore. Thank you."
|
|
Fatalistic legalism is not in Pharasma's code; she would have no desire for one of her followers to sacrifice his position in the Society so he could ensure the death of one necromancer. Instead, he could have healed the necromancer and been in a wonderful position to discuss the metaphysical consequences of his necromantic actions. A redeemed necromancer serves Pharasma far better than a dead one.
That said, I'd stand by the table GM's decision in this case, no matter which decision he might have made. Both sides have a very strong case, and he wouldn't have been incorrect in making either decision. Both players fell victim of the flaw of holding their own values higher than the Society's code: the tiefling decided to animate dead despite his team's request, and the Pharasmin decided to act in the interest of his religion rather than the Society. Had they both lived, neither should have been surprised to find themselves ejected from the Grand Lodge in ignominy. While I see the value in discussing what happened at Socalwarhammer's table, I see no reason to overturn the events that transpired there (except, perhaps, to retcon a few heal checks on the dwarf's part).
|
|
Bolded the faulty premise.
"Sir, please stand up and leave this table. Nobody wants you to play this game with us anymore. Thank you."
OK ... less extreme. You are playing with a group of good characters, with the exception of 1 character that is more fluid with his morality. He takes several actions that are against the moral code of the other three players, they ask him to stop both IC and OOC; but his actions are not evil nor really out of character for his alignment. Do you still ask him to leave?
The issue is that with the strict no PVP policy, you can't even really give him a thrashing or tie him up to prevent him from violating the groups moral compass. People know this and take advantage of it, does that make them jerks? Perhaps but what are you options?
S.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pirate Rob said it best above: out-of-character problems require out-of-character solutions.
Characters having different moral compasses is an in-character-problem. This can result in good, fun, roleplaying; the characters can interact with one another in ways that increase the amount of fun the players are having. There are many possibilities to make this work.
OR
This can result in one or more players using this situation to cause the other players at the table to have less fun. Now we are in an out-of-character situation. When such a situation arises, we should turn to out-of-character solutions. One of those solutions is to tell the problem player(s) that if they insist on disrupting the table then they will be asked to forfeit their seat.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I would have just stabilized him, and then played weekend at bernies with him.
"Oh.. whats that? You don't like this? Someone having complete control over your body ? Huh. I wonder who feels like this all the time...
Exactly this. There are many ways to express your disapproval without letting the character actually die.
Main reason I read this thread, btw, was to see who the Religious Landlord was...
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a tangled situation with lots of details we don't know, so I'm going to make some general suggestions to avoid this kind of issue in the future:
1) Tell the other players your character is angry with their characters before you take any actions.
If your character objects to another character's actions to the point where it will affect your play, you should let the other player know what's coming in advance. For example, if the inquisitor told the necromancer in advance, "If you do that again, I won't heal you", the necromancer might have run his character differently in the final combat, and he might not have died. (This is based on my teaching philosophy of "never let a student be surprised by failing grade": let them know when they are screwing up so they have a chance to fix it.)
2) Make your character's motivations/expectations/limitations clear in the beginning.
If you expect/demand the divine caster to heal you no matter what, you should probably discuss that long before you're in combat. If your class can cast cure spells but your character has an aversion to/inability to cast them, make sure you let the other characters know so they have the chance to stock up on potions. (This is not just about healing, of course. If other players try to put your character into a role your character can't/won't fill, say so before the party needs that role. For example, if you have one the bard archetypes that trade out bardic knowledge, tell the party, "Don't look to me for answers--I slept through that class." Give the party a chance to come up with contingency plans for missing roles.)
3) If you accept another player's resources, you should use them as agreed.
In this case, if the necromancer handed the inquisitor his wand of cure light wounds, the inquisitor should have used that wand on him or given it back as soon as he decided he would heal him. If a player says, "Hey, I have this wand/scroll--can you cast it on me when combat starts?" and you take that wand, you really need to cast that spell when combat starts. If you decide that your actions will be better spent doing something else, don't take the wand/scroll. Telling the player up front "No--I'll be too busy to cast that on you" is a lot better than getting into combat and saying "I got busy" or "I forgot". Maybe someone else could have used the resource, or maybe the other player could grab a potion or some other kind of back up. If you agree to do something but later change your mind, tell the party as soon as that happens.
4) As a GM, try to negotiate/mediate disputes between players.
You're a judge, not just a narrator. You can't force the inquisitor to heal the necromancer, sure, but you can certainly try to convince him or at least get him to explain why he won't in a way the other player can accept. If there's a question of violating the inquisitor's oath to Pharasma, suggest a solution that won't violate the oath (e.g., "I won't ding your alignment if you X instead of Y"). In this particular case, I might have tried something like, "If you stabilize him, you'll have the opportunity to convince him to change his ways, which would be a bigger win for Pharasma than just letting him die."
|
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
...the party agrees to continue on to the final encounter (for the Inquisitor-only because he felt honor bound to finish)...
Here's where I have a problem with the inquisitor's actions, just going by the OP's version of events, not knowing how biased the above is. The party agreed to continue the adventure for the sake of the inquisitor, and the inquisitor accepted that assistance to fulfill his goals, then as soon as that assistance was rendered, he washes his hands of the 'evil necromancer' and lets him die.
That may or may not be in character for the inquisitor based on his alignment and personality, but it certainly (to me) breaks the "Don't be a jerk" rule. If the inquisitor felt so strongly about the necromancy being practiced he should not have accepted the assistance of the one practicing it in the first place. Once that aid was accepted, it is in extreme bad taste to then be so ungrateful as to let the necromancer lay bleeding on the floor and die.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like most people here, have no idea what scenario and which dead enemies where available, but does everbody forget about the player of the rogue ?
The party could have pooled their resources to buy a raise dead for the rogue. Once you have animated the body as an undead creature, that option is gone.
Unless it was absolutely certain, that the player of the rogue did not want his character to come back, this aspect very much breaks the "don't be a jerk" rule.
And maybe next time instead of letting someone die, just do something foul to their spellbook or something similar.
And unless really necessary, please don't mutilate the bodies of your fallen comrades (there actually is precedent where this is a pretty great idea but that's a rather big spoiler).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...the party agrees to continue on to the final encounter (for the Inquisitor-only because he felt honor bound to finish)...Here's where I have a problem with the inquisitor's actions, just going by the OP's version of events, not knowing how biased the above is. The party agreed to continue the adventure for the sake of the inquisitor, and the inquisitor accepted that assistance to fulfill his goals, then as soon as that assistance was rendered, he washes his hands of the 'evil necromancer' and lets him die.
My interpretation of that part was that the Inquisitor was the one that didn't want to continue, but that they persuaded him that he was honor-bound to finish the mission.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this points to is this. If your a necromancer at 5th level, memorize a vampiric touch and heal yourself by touching the pharasma worshiper. After all if they won't heal you one way, they will heal you another.
That works less than well a -6 hp.
that really is PVP
that really is being a jerk
The more you post, the more I feel like if the necromancer is anything like you, I'd have let him die too.
|
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
My interpretation of that part was that the Inquisitor was the one that didn't want to continue, but that they persuaded him that he was honor-bound to finish the mission....the party agrees to continue on to the final encounter (for the Inquisitor-only because he felt honor bound to finish)...Here's where I have a problem with the inquisitor's actions, just going by the OP's version of events, not knowing how biased the above is. The party agreed to continue the adventure for the sake of the inquisitor, and the inquisitor accepted that assistance to fulfill his goals, then as soon as that assistance was rendered, he washes his hands of the 'evil necromancer' and lets him die.
Ah, hrm, you may be right. I may have misread that line. That seems the more likely interpretation now that I'm looking at it again.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
The OP didn't explicitly say the zombie was the rogue, just a "human corpse". I'd assumed it was an enemy.I like most people here, have no idea what scenario and which dead enemies where available, but does everbody forget about the player of the rogue ?
The party could have pooled their resources to buy a raise dead for the rogue. Once you have animated the body as an undead creature, that option is gone.
Unless it was absolutely certain, that the player of the rogue did not want his character to come back, this aspect very much breaks the "don't be a jerk" rule.
And maybe next time instead of letting someone die, just do something foul to their spellbook or something similar.
And unless really necessary, please don't mutilate the bodies of your fallen comrades (there actually is precedent where this is a pretty great idea but that's a rather big spoiler).
Yeah, I might have assumed to much, after reading that the human rogue was killed in action. Sorry about that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a player: My PC's will put their moral / religious beliefs on the back burner to ensure that we finish the job and everyone makes it home safe (or at least as many people as possible make it back). My paladin of Damerrich once had to party with a cleric/oracle (don't remember which) and an alchemist that had bragged about killing other PC's. I stuck it out and we all finished the mission alive and we went our separate ways, and I now know one person I don't want to play with again (despite some poor decisions regarding etiquette the Rovagug worshipper was at least entertaining, the alchemist not so much).
As a GM: It depends on the situation, but I will let people know that at my tables I put cooperation above other stuff, people at my table will almost never require an attonement for helping keep their party member's alive, barring extenuating circumstances.
Regarding the OP's situation, I think that the necromancer shouldn't have pushed the inquisitor's buttons, but the absolutely should not just stand by and let the necromancer bleed to death. They need to act like big kids, I'm making the assumption that they were only just acting like children and weren't actually children.
We're Pathfinders, the job should come first. Just remember that you don't have to like someone to work with you, and they don't have to like you to keep you alive.
Explore! Cooperate! Report!
|
|
Yeah, I might have assumed much, after reading that the human rogue was killed in action. Sorry about that.The OP didn't explicitly say the zombie was the rogue, just a "human corpse". I'd assumed it was an enemy.
And unless really necessary, please don't mutilate the bodies of your fallen comrades (there actually is precedent where this is a pretty great idea but that's a rather big spoiler).
I read that the same way that was the PC Rogue that was 'raised dead'. Only the OP can let us know which way that actually played out.
My question on this becomes how much do people just let people go in the killing NPC and such which are friendly and don't deem it an evil act. So it encourages things like this happening when people know they can get away with it. Seran Blackros mentioned the clerics who had to waste their healing on the friendly NPCs killed by the Barbarian - one or two I can see as neutral alignment, because there could be x reason for it (they insulted the PC, etc.) Five or so and you cannot give a good reason that fits within PFS (and killing them because they are halfling, elf, etc doesn't count).
This seems just an extension of this, we don't have consequence for PCs actions, that have players deemed Murder Hobos - so we're going to see more characters leaning this way.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can role play your religious tenants with out letting someone die. But you can also not be a trouble maker and create undead in front of the Pharasman is just asking for trouble. At the very least stablize him and let him lay there for the rest of the mission but dont let him die.
|
|
If you want to run an evilish character that deliberately screws with peoples morality you're going to have to accept that people will respond to you as an evilish person.
The dwarf can't make a dc 15 heal check in 4-6 tries?
I guess not. The -1 mod for Wisdom and no ranks in the skill really came back to bite him (or more correctly bite the Necromancer). I think he had 4 rounds (tries), but don't quote me on that part.
|
|
Fatalistic legalism is not in Pharasma's code; she would have no desire for one of her followers to sacrifice his position in the Society so he could ensure the death of one necromancer. Instead, he could have healed the necromancer and been in a wonderful position to discuss the metaphysical consequences of his necromantic actions. A redeemed necromancer serves Pharasma far better than a dead one.
That said, I'd stand by the table GM's decision in this case, no matter which decision he might have made. Both sides have a very strong case, and he wouldn't have been incorrect in making either decision. Both players fell victim of the flaw of holding their own values higher than the Society's code: the tiefling decided to animate dead despite his team's request, and the Pharasmin decided to act in the interest of his religion rather than the Society. Had they both lived, neither should have been surprised to find themselves ejected from the Grand Lodge in ignominy. While I see the value in discussing what happened at Socalwarhammer's table, I see no reason to overturn the events that transpired there (except, perhaps, to retcon a few heal checks on the dwarf's part).
Not my table- please refer to original post.
|
|
As far as I know the 'Zombie' was created by a use of defeated foes corpse. Both the Inquisitor and Dwarf felt it necessary to bring the fallen Rogue with them for proper burial and or the possibility of magical intervention.
If I remember the circumstances correctly- the Inquisitor wanted to leave after the creation of the zombie, but had promised the Dwarf and/or the NPC Venture Captain that they would fulfill the mission and or return said object. It wasn't my table, I am just relaying what I heard over dinner afterwards...
I would agree there was obviously some issues with the maturity levels of the players involved, but then again folks are going to have disagreements. I posted earlier what I thought I would have done, but this was more a question posed as to if it was acceptable on behalf of the GM to let it transpire the way he did. I said it was OK within his prevue as a GM, although I might have done 1 or 2 things differently. If it was a test, maybe his overall grade was a C... but that is still passing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM should have asked the players at the beginning if they would be able to have their characters work together, and if they were unable to do so, asked one or the other to use a different character for the scenario.
Beyond that, I fail to see the problem (aside from the end of game temper flaring and such). Neither player broke a single game or PFS rule. The Necromancer used a legal class ability, the Inquisitor chose not to use one. There is no rule that says you must use your spells or resources to aid your party members, and it certainly isn't something worthy of an atonement spell.
The Pathfinder Society is far to nebulously defined, belief inclusive and open ended in it's missions and goals to simply say, "everyone must get along at all times, no matter what". The Society is not some fervent loyalty inducing order that melds it's members into lockstep marching adherents; it is in many cases, just a job, and one with some often very unsavory objectives and associates. The only thing they require is to conduct your mission, "Explore", tell them what happened, "Report", and work together long enough to accomplish that, "Cooperate".
Looks to me like they did all of that, at least long enough to accomplish the final goal... the Society isn't the Ranger Regiment with an oath about leaving a fallen companion to fall into the hands of an enemy. In fact, the Society itself won't do a damned thing to help you out out of a "sense of teamwork", you have to have earned the prestige for them to even lift a finger. So why should a fellow player? Especially when the mission is complete.
Perhaps not kind, but definitely not illegal. And the "don't be a jerk" rule isn't meant to be a bludgeon to force players to play the way you want them to.
|
|
All this points to is this. If your a necromancer at 5th level, memorize a vampiric touch and heal yourself by touching the pharasma worshiper. After all if they won't heal you one way, they will heal you another.That works less than well a -6 hp.
that really is PVP
that really is being a jerk
The more you post, the more I feel like if the necromancer is anything like you, I'd have let him die too.
That's your call. I admit I'm chaotic neutral. It's no more being a jerk than letting someone die that you could save.
But than I've saved characters that would have refused healing from a certain evil spell.But sadly you can't get a character kicked out of the society because they let party members die.
So call me what you will, and protest that I'd vampiric touch a party member refusing to heal who can. My character will walk away if it comes down to Mr I won't heal or me.
Insert the slurp stray of temporary hp and roll the dice my friend. Even if it means my character goes into retirement, he will be alive to do so.