RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My take is the inquisitor could have acted vindictively while still saving the necromancer. Perhaps saving him, then getting to either
1. gloat about he should reconsider his actions as even the power of undeath was not enough to save his near demise.
2. lecture him that he should consider another life as Pharasma saved him this time but may not be there next.
3. try to convert him to be a Pharasmin and use his powers to study and defeat undead instead of creating it.
Alternatively, the inquisitor could have even saved him just because it's better to let him die in a more civilized manner that will less likely result in undead appearing, which his undeath tainted actions will probably induce.
All of those would have been great RP ways to save a character and fellow Pathfinder that would have otherwise easily survived had the inquisitor's player decided to use RP to punish the necromancer player. That is why I believe the inquisitor violated the "Don't be a jerk" rule. The inquisitor has an RP reason why he broke the rule, but he broke it nonetheless.
The "Cooperate!" part of the Society creed means you help your party, because you are all allies. You don't have to like each other, and even if the necromancer broke a social contract, it doesn't absolve the inquisitor and his player from reneging on the Society tenets, in game and out.
Personally, I'd also feel bad for the dwarf who was trying like heck to save the guy and just couldn't roll high enough. I've seen those strings of bad luck to know he/she must have been angry that he/she couldn't save a fellow Pathfinder due to bad luck.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was more than bad luck involved. People made some very bad decisions.
The necromancer did not have a clearly labled potion of cure light wounds on his person and that the party was informed of. You break basic adventuring sop you pay the price.
The dwarf dumped wisdom. Thats gonna cost people. Usually when they get dominated and kill everyong, but things like this too.
The dwarf did not have a clearly labeled potion of cure light wounds on his person that the party was informed of.
The necromancer didn't invest in a con score.
In the entire adventure no one looted a potion of CLW and found out what it was
and THEN... after all that, the dice still had to hate you. The dwarf couldn't roll a heal check. The necromancer couldn't stabalize on their own. One of those SHOULD have happened just by sheer luck.
Yeah, ya'll drunk dialed pharasma. She answered.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
@BNW: True (and I missed the part about he Wis dumped dwarf, although even at a minimum it would have been a 16 Heal check to stabilize, at least possible 25% of the time by die rolls).
But you're right, much of it was a tactical comedy of errors. At this point, hopefully lessons are learned all around.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The existence of many necromancer PC's and the way this sort of thread pops up about every other week suggests you are quite wrong.You can't play an immoral character in PFS. You must be good or neutral aligned. Immoral means evil. The overriding goal is "go out and get the artifact, be neutral or good about it."
Creating undead is an evil act in Golarion. Routinely doing evil acts makes you an evil person. You can't play someone who routinely creates undead.
You have a lot of room to bend the alignment rules in PFS, but if your basic concept is "I'm a black necromancer" then your basic concept is also "I am an evil guy who does evil things" and trouble will ensue.
Actually, the fact that this sort of thread pops up on a weekly basis suggests that he is, in fact, quite correct. Trouble is ensuing roughly every other week.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chris, I would be willing to try and see if literally means the same thing to me, as it does you. 8)
I think up at least 5 different impossible things before breakfast after all.
Also, yes I really do want to see in the 7.0 guide. If you can save a player after combat ends with healing, you have to.
The fact that anyone here, will defend a character that will refuse to heal a fellow pathfinder for any reason, are quite terrible.
This is a team game. If you have a character that wont contribute, or cooperate than you should retire that character, because it isn't what society is about.
You dont have to like a person, or a character, but if you go out as a team, you best have each others backs. Refusing to heal a dying ally - to me means you've done the equivalent of pvp. If you want to complain about you wont use any of your resources, it's great that if you have stabilize it costs nothing.
If you however, after combat is over, refuse to even use stabilize on your dying comrade, than you should be the one to pay the prestige to bring your comrade back.
The refusal to cast a single clw, resulting in 20pp, or 6k gold for someone to come back, is pvp. You have decided to impose fines on someone, or kill their character out of vindictiveness.
That violates every tenant of Society that I at least believe in, and yes I would declare my character an npc, and attempt to drop someone who would do that to a fellow comrade without blinking an eye.
If you have issue with what I'm declaring, but no issue over someone letting a fellow Society member die, than you are the problem, because as people state, what my solution is, is impossible.
I have an issue with characters killing other characters (and funny enough, that's what the Guide says.) I have an issue with characters who force others to sacrifice without giving up something themselves. I do NOT have an issue with a character who dies due to his or her own actions, and that's the case here.
The inquisitor still cooperated in making sure that the objectives that the society put out for the group were met. Beyond that, explain to me what his duty to the necromancer was, and what his duty to Pharasma was. If you are telling me that a divine-based character (and I mean one for whom following the edicts of a deity are mandatory for the class) doesn't really have to follow the rules of his or deity, why do we even have that rule.
And to suggest that there should be a rule that says "if you can heal a fellow pathfinder, you HAVE to?" No. NO WAY. I have yet to sit at a table where I see any other class be told what they have to do, but I see it all the time with clerics, oracles, and other healing-centric characters. Well, if you think healers should heal if they can, then why don't you just play a healer yourself?
Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with what happened in this game. Lots of bad decisions were made by a number of folks, but none of which violate the "no PvP" rule, at least not in my view. And, had I been the GM, I certainly wouldn't have said it was a violation, nor require any atonement, or any penalty of the sort. The necromancer knew what he was doing and counted on the inquisitor feeling an obligation to heal him. He guessed wrong.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
The "Cooperate!" part of the Society creed means you help your party, because you are all allies. You don't have to like each other, and even if the necromancer broke a social contract, it doesn't absolve the inquisitor and his player from reneging on the Society tenets, in game and out.
Debatably, "Cooperate" means work together to get the job done. This situation is complicated a little by the fact that it sounds like they had just finished the job... (Though arguably, the job isn't done till you report in.)
Debatably, "Cooperate" means work together to get the job done. This situation is complicated a little by the fact that it sounds like they had just finished the job... (Though arguably, the job isn't done till you report in.)The "Cooperate!" part of the Society creed means you help your party, because you are all allies. You don't have to like each other, and even if the necromancer broke a social contract, it doesn't absolve the inquisitor and his player from reneging on the Society tenets, in game and out.
Looking this I really want to know if that Zombie made a difference in getting the job done? If the goal wasn't obtainable without it being there would people feel differently about this situation?
|
Your character can dislike it, but you need to Cooperate at the table or play a different character.
BOTH players need to cooperate. It is unacceptable for one player to say "I'm roleplaying. Now YOU can't roleplay, you must cooperate".
Not being at the table, its very unclear but it seems to me that BOTH players likely failed to cooperate.
The rule in the guide is vague because it HAS to be. Only the people at the table know who is being the jerk. I can trivially envision either player in the OP as being totally blameless or either or both being jerks.
The one key thing I tell every new player is that their character HAS to be flexible enough to handle most other characters and it is essential that player and character be willing to compromise. BOTH characters must be willing to compromise.
|
|
Looking this I really want to know if that Zombie made a difference in getting the job done? If the goal wasn't obtainable without it being there would people feel differently about this situation?
From the character POV it probably depends a lot on the mission. Some missions my character is heavily emotionally invested in, others they're just in it for the bennies (loot, exp, prestige, lols, whatever).
|
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.
I would argue that casting an evil spell and raising undead are two different things here. There are lots of evil spells, and only a small portion of them create undead. By PFS staff dictate, casting an evil spell is not in and of itself evil, but the act of actively raising undead is something else entirely beyond the means used to do it. It's kind of like using Cure Light Wounds to keep someone alive to torture them longer doesn't make it a good action just because you used a good spell - the intent and result matter, and the act of creating undead is intrinsically evil, regardless of the method used.
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.
I would say from what info we have the necromancer was just as guilty of not cooperating and being a jerk.
There was already an agreement to not animate dead. He did it anyway. Supposedly specifically for the purpose of pushing the player of the inquisitor's buttons.So the necromancer was not cooperating and being a jerk before the inquisitor did it.
I think the player of the inquisitor took his IC retribution too far. But the start of the problem was the player of the necromancer.
I think there is sufficient blame to go around here.
Personally, if I was the player of the inquisitor, I would have stabilized but definitely not healed him. (I probably would have also used the CLW wand to 'heal' the zombie and put it to rest.) After that, I would very specifically avoid sitting at a table with that player again.
.
.
I will also say that situations like this are why I decided not to create a paladin or an animating necromancer for PFS games. I may or may not get around to creating one for a home game where I know who is playing what, but not for PFS.
|
|
I would argue that casting an evil spell and raising undead are two different things here. There are lots of evil spells, and only a small portion of them create undead. By PFS staff dictate, casting an evil spell is not in and of itself evil, but the act of actively raising undead is something else entirely beyond the means used to do it.
The argument doesn't work. The various animate icky undead spells are legal spells. You cannot put a backdoor ban on legal materials with logic the campaign has specifically gone out of its way to refute.
|
That is why I believe the inquisitor violated the "Don't be a jerk" rule. The inquisitor has an RP reason why he broke the rule, but he broke it nonetheless.
No! No-no-no-no-no! The "don't be a jerk" rule is not some nebulous bludgeon that we get to use to make people play their characters the way you want them to. The Inquisitor wasn't being a "jerk" by not healing the Necromancer, he was under no obligation to do so and it was already established that the two were at odds ideologically... well, the Inquisitor's ideology is precisely where his healing comes from so... Every time someone does something that people don't agree with or that doesn't fit with their idea of how the game is played, it is not an excuse to pull out the "jerk" card.
The "Cooperate!" part of the Society creed means you help your party, because you are all allies. You don't have to like each other, and even if the necromancer broke a social contract, it doesn't absolve the inquisitor and his player from reneging on the Society tenets, in game and out.
The Inquisitor broke absolutely no tenets of the Society, nor any rules of the game in general or PFS in particular. He did cooperate to complete the mission and I am sure it will be reported on.
But there is no rule that says how or when a player must use their resources and abilities, and certainly not one that says you must heal other characters. And the moment such rules comes into existence is the moment many people stop playing certain characters.
Do I believe that the Inquisitor and Necromancer could have worked things out more amicably? Absolutely, as it is a game played for fun and I prefer no hard feelings. That said, however, I do not think the Inquisitor did anything wrong or deserving of rebuke beyond maybe a nudge and a hinting, "Are you sure about that dude?"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any class that has a "higher calling" than their bosses at the Pathfinder Society is going to run into this at some point. Paladins, necromancers, any divine class that isn't about being helpful, the list goes on and on. This can provide interesting roleplaying until you get two PCs that have conflicting views.
Were I a Venture-Captain, I wouldn't hire someone with religious or ethical objections to doing the job I assign them or working with their co-workers. But our in-game V-Cs do.
Short of players choosing to build good team-player Pathfinder characters, there isn't a way to deal with this in the rules without taking away free will. If we allow necromancers and clerics of Pharasma, and oathbound paladins and imp familiars, and chaotic neutral gnomes and flammables, obviously there will be a conflict between characters unless the *players* choose to resolve it.
If there was a canon reason that the V-C (in character) could deliver during the briefing to head off any of this stuff, I think it would help GMs who are unsure on how to deal with it. "I know not all of you see things the same way, but remember, for the duration of this mission, you're Pathfinders, not individuals. Work together, accept the transgressions of your colleagues as they will accept yours. In short, suck it up and get the job done without squabbling!"
|
Maybe both players were being jerks, maybe not. By the sound of it to me, the PCs were being jerks to each other because the PCs had opposing moral views. If the players had switched PCs they might have had a great time with each other. Putting that argument aside:
So the two survivors come back to the lodge to report. The dwarf tells their venture captain that he did all he could to save the necromancer, but the cleric stood there and watched their fellow pathfinder die. The society tells the cleric they can no longer work with them if they cannot be relied upon to cooperate with all their fellow pathfinders. Cleric is fired, character is reported as dead.
Of course, the GM should make it clear to the cleric player as the necromancer lies dying that they will be booted from the society for their inaction. The society is a neutral organization, they care not about the morality or religion of their members, only that they work together. Anyone who breeches these three tenants, explore, report, cooperate, is not going to remain a pfs agent.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Were I a Venture-Captain, I wouldn't hire someone with religious or ethical objections to doing the job I assign them or working with their co-workers. But our in-game V-Cs do.
With good reason. Having a higher power than the society isn't quite a prerequisite for being any good at the whole healing part of the job but its pretty close.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
So the two survivors come back to the lodge to report. The dwarf tells their venture captain that he did all he could to save the necromancer, but the cleric stood there and watched their fellow pathfinder die. The society tells the cleric they can no longer work with them if they cannot be relied upon to cooperate with all their fellow pathfinders. Cleric is fired, character is reported as dead.
Of course, the GM should make it clear to the cleric player as the necromancer lies dying that they will be booted from the society for their inaction. The society is a neutral organization, they care not about the morality or religion of their members, only that they work together. Anyone who breeches these three tenants, explore, report, cooperate, is not going to remain a pfs agent.
Only if you are going to go the other way also.
The inquisitor healed the necromancer. The 3 survivors head back and report to the VC.
The VC tells the necromancer he can not be relied on to cooperate with all their fellow pathfinders. You agreed not create undead, then did so in direct violation of the that agreement, just because you thought it would be amusing. The necromancer is fired, character is reported as dead.
Of course, the GM should make it clear to the necromancer player as the he is getting ready to create a zombie that they will be booted from the society for their action. The society is a neutral organization, they care not about the morality or religion of their members, only that they work together. Anyone who breeches these three tenants, explore, report, cooperate, is not going to remain a pfs agent.
|
I just don't see this as equal at all. There's no reason for one player to tell the other not to use their class features at the table while out of character if it doesn't violate any rules. The situation this Inquisitor put everyone in practically borders on coercion. "Don't use Animate Dead or I won't help you (best case) or I won't play this game with you" (holding the actual table hostage from running the game, worst case.)
I really feel a bit disgusted people think what each person did were even close to equivalent situations. One player intentionally let someone else's character die after the scenario had concluded (at a personal cost of 1/25 a prestige point for his wand charge) the other wanted to play his character after being told not to.
Do I think the Inquisitor had to use his resources to help the other player? No, you can't force someone to do so and it would create bad precedent in the future. Do I think he should have? Yes because most normal friendly people who came to enjoy company and play a game together would do so when the opportunity cost to their character is near non-existent. To do otherwise... makes threads like this occur because we now have to debate just how disrespectful someone is 'allowed' to be at the table.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me put it in American terms
Medic is a devout religious man. Private Atheist is outspoken in his denouncement of religion. The two argue all the time. Atheist was reprimanded earlier for stealing Medic's bible and defacing it.
Atheist is driving the lead humvee when boom, their caravan hits an ied. Private Joe Average in the second truck jumps out and runs forward, Atheist was hit with shrapnel and bleeding badly. "Medic!" He shouts.
Medic runs up, "oh it's Atheist, I hate that guy. I don't feel like helping him."
"He's dying here. Help me!" Cries Joe, trying to put pressure on Atheist's wounds.
"No, that guy defaced the holy scriptures, this is his just reward."
Later...
"Court marshaled!? But I didn't do anything!"
...
Yes, the necromancer broke the rules too, but his infraction was on a whole different level. If the inquisitor had healed the necromancer then the VC would probably have reprimanded the necromancer for antagonizing his fellow agents and put him on detention or made him scrub the bathrooms or whatever. When your actions, or in this case inaction, directly results in the death of your teammate, the inquiry goes to a whole other level and the punishments are much more severe.
Except that the two are not really comparable. The Necromancer's actions did nothing to harm the society, jeopardise the mission or harm his fellow pathfinders. The Inquisitor stood there and watched another pathfinder die without doing anything at all. Even if he didn't want to use any direct resources making a heal check costs nothing.Only if you are going to go the other way also.
The inquisitor healed the necromancer. The 3 survivors head back and report to the VC.
The VC tells the necromancer he can not be relied on to cooperate with all their fellow pathfinders. You agreed not create undead, then did so in direct violation of the that agreement, just because you thought it would be amusing. The necromancer is fired, character is reported as dead.
Of course, the GM should make it clear to the necromancer player as the he is getting ready to create a zombie that they will be booted from the society for their action. The society is a neutral organization, they care not about the morality or religion of their members, only that they work together. Anyone who breeches these three tenants, explore, report, cooperate, is not going to remain a pfs agent.
Actually, I can entirely make the case they are quite comparable.
The necromancer during the mission specifically and intentionally broke the agreement made within the group just to tick off the other group member. That very definitely jeopardizes the mission and harms the Society by weakening the bond of trust, knowing full well it harms that other persons relationship with his deity (the source of all his abilities).
You can even make the case that necromancer was far worse. He actively and intentionally caused trouble with another person during the mission. The inquisitor passively did not assist a troublemaker after the mission.
As I said before, there is more than enough blame for both of them. The inquisitor could have made his point without another character dying. But the necromancer clearly started the trouble then was a poor sport when it didn't work out the way he wanted. I think the player of the inquisitor might be slightly more to blame than the player of the necromancer, but only slightly.
And I would very much rather continue playing further scenarios with the player of the inquisitor rather than the player of the necromancer.
Let me put it in American terms
Medic is a devout religious man. Private Atheist is outspoken in his denouncement of religion. The two argue all the time. Atheist was reprimanded earlier for stealing Medic's bible and defacing it.
Atheist is driving the lead humvee when boom, their caravan hits an ied. Private Joe Average in the second truck jumps out and runs forward, Atheist was hit with shrapnel and bleeding badly. "Medic!" He shouts.
Medic runs up, "oh it's Atheist, I hate that guy. I don't feel like helping him."
"He's dying here. Help me!" Cries Joe, trying to put pressure on Atheist's wounds.
"No, that guy defaced the holy scriptures, this is his just reward."Later...
"Court marshaled!? But I didn't do anything!"
...Yes, the necromancer broke the rules too, but his infraction was on a whole different level. If the inquisitor had healed the necromancer then the VC would probably have reprimanded the necromancer for antagonizing his fellow agents and put him on detention or made him scrub the bathrooms or whatever. When your actions, or in this case inaction, directly results in the death of your teammate, the inquiry goes to a whole other level and the punishments are much more severe.
The case can easily be made that the inquisitor was not a medic equivalent. I would say closer to soldiers from separate countries in a NATO op.
Also that the action was much worse than defacing his bible. Closer to blowing up churches during a mission after promising not to do it anymore just because he thought it would be funny to piss of the other guy during a mission.And you can search to find it is a documented fact that very hated guys are sometimes allowed to kill themselves in combat and others don't try very hard to save them.
It is only because of the 'game' nature of this situation that I think the inquisitor probably should have saved him. If you really want to play this like it was real life, I'd say the inquisitor was right.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me put it in American terms
Medic is a devout religious man. Private Atheist is outspoken in his denouncement of religion. The two argue all the time. Atheist was reprimanded earlier for stealing Medic's bible and defacing it.
Atheist is driving the lead humvee when boom, their caravan hits an ied. Private Joe Average in the second truck jumps out and runs forward, Atheist was hit with shrapnel and bleeding badly. "Medic!" He shouts.
Medic runs up, "oh it's Atheist, I hate that guy. I don't feel like helping him."
"He's dying here. Help me!" Cries Joe, trying to put pressure on Atheist's wounds.
"No, that guy defaced the holy scriptures, this is his just reward."Later...
"Court marshaled!? But I didn't do anything!"
...
No, you put it into Military terms.
But Pathfinder Society is not a military organization... nor a government agency, or religious hierarchy or any other such organization that is based upon or demands any such devotion or structure.
The Society is a disparate group of scholars, grave robbers, mercenaries, adventurers, con men and diplomats, with the occasional idealist and zealot mixed in. They don't have that kind of rigid adherence to rules or structure, they care if the job gets done and the Society doesn't get a bad name from it.
And besides, any notion that the Society actually cares if a character dies or not is thrown out the window by the fact that it requires so much prestige to pay for a Raise. Oh, they will bring you back... if you have proven yourself valuable enough or essentially kissed up to the right people... but not out of the goodness of their hearts.
If anything the conversation is more likely to go like this;
Dwarf: "I tried me best, but he died... and he just stood there and watched!"
V-C: "Is this true?"
Inquisitor: "He chose to tempt his fate with Pharasma by raising the undead... so I left his recovery in her fate as well".
V-C: *sighs*" Well, did you get the McGuffen?"
Inquisitor: "We did"
V-C: "Alright then, I will expect your reports promptly. You may go"
V-C: "Note to self, avoid pairing Necromancers with Pharasmites in the future..."
|
|
I'm just confused how you think the Necromancer started it when the Inquisitor was the one telling people not to use certain spells. There literally isn't a situation at all if the Inquisitor didn't start it.
Honestly, in this campaign setting, I do believe there is some amount of duty to rescue the 'don't be a jerk' rule implies. While in the U.S. you don't have to help someone you don't know there also isn't a law saying 'don't be a jerk'. There's a slightly higher moral standard in this game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, in this campaign setting, I do believe there is some amount of duty to rescue the 'don't be a jerk' rule implies. While in the U.S. you don't have to help someone you don't know there also isn't a law saying 'don't be a jerk'. There's a slightly higher moral standard in this game.
No, there is not. You are not obligated to save your companions, only that you must cooperate to complete your mission. Well, the mission was complete. To borrow from Batman, "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you"
I really wish we had the GM present there is so much information I want to ask. Did the undead take any attacks from the BBEG (thus keeping some damage away from the party), did it damage the BBEG significantly(thus speeding up an encounter that was already down a man.) and so forth.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just confused how you think the Necromancer started it when the Inquisitor was the one telling people not to use certain spells. There literally isn't a situation at all if the Inquisitor didn't start it.
Honestly, in this campaign setting, I do believe there is some amount of duty to rescue the 'don't be a jerk' rule implies. While in the U.S. you don't have to help someone you don't know there also isn't a law saying 'don't be a jerk'. There's a slightly higher moral standard in this game.
Well, according to the OP:
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.
He didn't tell him he couldn't use those spells, or not to use them. Rather, he told the necromancer "..you will be best served..." The necromancer agreed to it. That places the burden, then, squarely on the necromancer to abide by that agreement. He deliberately and willingly chose to do so and as such, it resulted in him receiving Pharasma's final retribution. He was warned. He agreed. And then chose to violate that agreement.
The inquistor didn't hasten the necromancer's death, nor did he kill him. He let Pharasma's will be done, and did this AFTER they had completed the final encounter, not at some other point during the mission.
I'm just confused how you think the Necromancer started it when the Inquisitor was the one telling people not to use certain spells. There literally isn't a situation at all if the Inquisitor didn't start it.
Honestly, in this campaign setting, I do believe there is some amount of duty to rescue the 'don't be a jerk' rule implies. While in the U.S. you don't have to help someone you don't know there also isn't a law saying 'don't be a jerk'. There's a slightly higher moral standard in this game.
Because the player of the necromancer agreed to not animate dead. Then animated dead specifically to 'push the buttons' of the player of the inquisitor. That is pretty damn clearly starting things.
As I already sated yes, because of the 'don't be a jerk' rule and the injunction to cooperate, I think the player of the inquisitor was slightly more in the wrong based on what we have been told of the situation.
Again there is more than enough blame to go around. My disagreement is with those who appear to be trying to vilify the player of the inquisitor and acting like the player of the necromancer didn't do anything wrong.
Where did anyone say the undead was just to push buttons? I saw that where it was stated it caused drama but not that anyone was doing it just cause.
Scratch that i found it. In that case yeah regardless of how much help the zombie was dude was still a jerk.
Where did anyone say the undead was just to push buttons? I saw that where it was stated it caused drama but not that anyone was doing it just cause.
** spoiler omitted **
here
... 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. ...
|
|
One guy broke his word of mouth agreement to not use the weapon that he was issued because it offended the other guys delicate sensibilities. The other guy killed him for breaking his word. This is pathfinder, the inquisitor had ways of automatically saving the necromancer's life. All he had to do was push a button and the necromancer would be alive. In court, this inquisitor would get charged with manslaughter. The necromancer would get called a jerk for breaking his word, but did nothing legally wrong.
I'm happy to say I've never run into this, but then again if I had been running the game, it was the final encounter, the villains were all down, I'd just go to the conclusion. I assume any PC that was down but not dead would be stabilized/healed to concious and everyone would go home cause its done. Unless they were in a place where the other PCs could not find or reach them, I never play out healing the PCs up when the game is already done.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to the necromancer's intentions, all we have is speculation. For all we know, the necromancer may have done it as a last resort desperation maneuver, as the OP did say one of the four PCs had died, and the party was getting pounded hard from there.
Either way, when you examine that we are all people trying to have a cooperative fantasy experience for fun and entertainment, leaving a downed PC to die when you have the means to stop that is really pretty mean spirited. This is still a game last time I checked.
|
He did not tell him he could not use his abilities; just not to expect help from the inquisitor if he did. How do you have an affect on people's behavior when they are not held accountable at all?
I play a Neutral character that often ventures into the territory of evil and have the Atonement receipts to prove it. If I interpret the mission of 'severing ties' between the Pathfinders and an NPC as drowning said NPC, I can see how some folk may feel some sort of way about that; hell I would be shocked if people did not argue the point with me.
If they do and I feel strongly enough about doing this thing, willing to pay for the atonement in the name of 'getting the job done', other characters are within their rights to inform me that my actions are reprehensible and not to expect aid from them to prolong my own life, when I have such disregard for the lives of others.
There is no PFS rule that says that I can not kill NPC's, just as there is no rule that you can't raise people that have fallen as undead. But the group's (or members thereof) ethics cause them to give me an ultimatum. Stop being a murderer or we will neither save you nor heal you.
At that point, I have a choice to make. I can continue acting as my character believes is best to accomplish the mission and rely on my own resources to survive or alter my behavior to stay in the good graces of my teammates. If I decide the former and I die, I only have myself to blame; if I decide the later and the mission fails, I, also, could blame myself. The situation was completely up to me. Just because it is game, does not remove the concept of Personal Responsibility.
It is ironic that I am defending the 'moral' end of this conversation, where in game, my main character is closer to the Necromancer in alignment.
Strange that.
S.
I haven't personally run into this situation. But I was present at another table when one pretty close happened.
Silver crusade paladin vs. Chelaxian wizard with imp in the same party. The wizard kept having his imp do things to taunt the paladin. The Paladin tried to ignore him and take it in good humor. But was having trouble since the other player was doing it just to be a jerk. The GM kept trying to calm them both down. Eventually the player of the paladin attacked the imp and wizard, knowing that his PC would be officially 'dead' to the Society but not caring anymore. The GM then started yelling and left the building. I've never seen any of those 3 players at any of our PFS events since.
In my opinion, the only one I ever had any trouble with was the player of the wizard. I had already learned to avoid him at table. But the game lost 2 players that I thought were pretty good and fun to be around.
I was especially sorry to see the GM leave. Was one of the better GM's in our local area.
|
|
In court, this inquisitor would get charged with manslaughter.
Technically no, not in America. There is no legal requirement to do anything to save another person unless you were responsible for creating the danger that threatens them. I could stand next to a person on fire and eat popcorn, and I wouldn't be liable for not saving them even if I knew there was a bucket of water nearby.
In other countries (Germany, for example), you'd be liable and would go to prison.
How far out is he bleeding and what spells do you have available.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Were I a Venture-Captain, I wouldn't hire someone with religious or ethical objections to doing the job I assign them or working with their co-workers. But our in-game V-Cs do.
My Superstitious Dwarf Barbarian always politely thanks his V-Cs for keeping their promise to finally not put him in with a team of pathfinders that include any of those stinking spell casters.
Then, after character introductions, he promptly pitches a fit after finding out they lied to him once again.
Let me put it in American terms
Medic is a devout religious man. Private Atheist is outspoken in his denouncement of religion. The two argue all the time. Atheist was reprimanded earlier for stealing Medic's bible and defacing it.
Atheist is driving the lead humvee when boom, their caravan hits an ied. Private Joe Average in the second truck jumps out and runs forward, Atheist was hit with shrapnel and bleeding badly. "Medic!" He shouts.
Medic runs up, "oh it's Atheist, I hate that guy. I don't feel like helping him."
Alternative analogy:
Medic is on a mission with Private Cannibal who, during the mission, defiles and eats the corpse of an enemy soldier despite being asked not to. "It's good protein," says Cannibal. "I need to be in shape for the mission. There's nothing in regulations saying I can't. It's not an evil act. He's already dead, after all."
Medic explains that this is considered the most evil possible act according to his religion. Cannibal promises not to do it again, but is later seen gnawing on a human hand.
Medic knows his superiors don't really care about anything beyond the mission getting completed and that if he complains about Cannibal nothing will be done. Does he have a moral obligation to bring Cannibal back alive?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Detailed discussion of in-character analogies will not help solve an out-of-character issue.
We don't know how the agreement to steer clear of "raise dead" was handled.
We don't know the tenor of the interaction when the necromancer raised the dead guy. We don't know if it was the rogue. Did the necromancer's player talk to the inquisitor's player out-of-character and seek compromise?
So, let me turn this around and ask: if you were playing the inquisitor, how could you have chosen to defuse the situation?
If you were playing the necromancer, how would you have defused the situation?
If you were the GM, or another player at the table (the dwarf, maybe) what could you have done, to help get everybody a Chronicle and get them to leave the table as friends?