|
| 1 person 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?
I started a list here. Please add your own suggestions.
In most countries, there are not laws that require you to assist others in danger, called Duty to Rescue.
And many of the ones that do require it stat that they have the duty to do so "unless doing so would put themselves or others in harm's way". In my mind, and from the perspective of the Inquisitor it is valid to say that assisting the necromancer is putting him in harm's way...with his deity that provides his powers. Pharasma abhors undead. Creating undead is probably the most offensive thing you can really do to her.
It is entirely reasonable that the Inquisitor believe that his deity would punish him for helping the "heathen".
Honestly, I think the wisest decision would be for PFS to say that Animate Dead and Create Undead Spells are not legal for play, and thus remove an option that creates so many problems between the varied characters available to play. Being outright evil is already banned, to me it is no stretch to ban the creation of undead so that those who play good divine aligned characters aren't in trick positions to figure out how to act.
|
I don't agree that creating undead needs to be banned, I would like to see a loosening of some of the filters if anything. I don't really see this as a good vs evil argument, more a differences of opinion one. The question is how do you express your displeasure at the actions of a team mate, when other than talk their ear off, you really can't affect them in any way?
S.
|
I see alot of people saying ...they wouldn't hire religious people or other variations of this. WEll BS...this isnt the real world where there can be sane people that say god/gods dont exist, this is a world where the gods 1100% exists ... The society is based in one of the biggest centers of religion in the world, and is 100% in need of things only divine casters/religious people can reliably provide.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I got a character who frolicks with corpses and, well I'll let her tell it:
A dog-tired gnome readhead turns the corner and unenthusistically starts
The name's Dien. Undead? I've raised plenty. Part of the trade, y'see? Can't make a living with just curses in Ankar-Te, can I? But I've met some odd folks, picked up some knick-knacks and read the odds and ends and well...it's not worth it. See, I've read The Bones Land in a Spiral and how it explains the deal is that raising the recently dead prevents the petitioner's journey. That's slavery with astral tethers. Yeah, I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of the living-undead, soul-unsoul dealios, but I got one thing anyone can respect: The death of existence.
Scared? Me too, me too. I'd offer some wine, but, you know, we're on duty. Zey would impale us.
Sooo, when Jimbob the Apprentic offers a corpse to the energies of the Negative Energy Plane, the cadaver gets infused with the queer creative unlife rampant in those parts. Eventually, the skeleton or z-head or bodak or whichever will get to meet their...err re-end, but the energy? It doesn't go anywhere. Bits and parts stay here. And that's just what the denizens of the Plane want. To sally forth into the Material and conquer all.
Remember how freakishly worried the crusaders in Nerosyan were about the expansion of the Wound? My theory is that we face a similar, but slower expansion of the negaenergy from the Plane. The more we bring here, the easier breaching the structures that keep our dimensions apart get.
Frankly, it makes me shudder. I don't create anymore, just command z-heads and the occasional devourer. Command and let my templarish allies finish'em later. Too darn scary! And I've talked to kytons. At least they can crack jokes. Whips and jokes, yup. And those Dark Tapestry crazy fellows? They just want company, dangit. This, this is serious.
skulks away, shaken but wary of Aram Zey
|
|
I see alot of people saying ...they wouldn't hire religious people or other variations of this.
No, I said I wouldn't hire someone who would have ethical objections to doing the job I was hiring them for. I wouldn't hire a vegetarian to be a butcher. I wouldn't hire an atheist to be a priest. (Unless I was Razmir.) I wouldn't hire someone who can't break laws to go on a mission involving the breaking of laws. And I wouldn't put a cleric of Pharasma and a necromancer in the same line at lunch, let alone on the same mission team. (Unless I was Drandle Dreng.)
There's nothing wrong with religious Pathfinders, unless their religion makes it impossible for them to be a Pathfinder.
|
There's nothing wrong with religious Pathfinders, unless their religion makes it impossible for them to be a Pathfinder.
This has to yield to the out of game consideration that the characters the venture captain is sending on the mission are completely dependent on what players have shown up to play a game.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has to yield to the out of game consideration that the characters the venture captain is sending on the mission are completely dependent on what players have shown up to play a game.
There's nothing wrong with religious Pathfinders, unless their religion makes it impossible for them to be a Pathfinder.
Which is exactly why it is necessary for us, as players, to step out of the "what would my character do?" mentality, and instead ask, "what can my character do that will make the game enjoyable for everyone?"
When character conflicts come up in the game, it is okay to say, "Hey, Bob, let's have your character win the argument this time, and he can do what he wants right now, but next time my character will win the disagreement." Or just flip a coin.
Character conflicts should not spill over into player conflicts. And vice versa.
|
I'd never let another Pathfinder perish if I could do something about it. However, I have let another Pathfinder perish, when they take chances that force me to risk more lives (not just my own) in their rescue.
I'm on S.of Asmodeaus's soap box. You joined the society to cooperate, explore, and report. You know before you join that differing alignments and all sorts of people are in the soup with you. You can choose to steer them in the right direction, (if you feel they're in the wrong direction), but you don't get to pvp through a) direct b) indirect c) lack of action.)
Even a guy who was griefing the entire table with his lunacy .. I still brought him back to stable (not positive hps - I had enough of his ill manner.) But let him die, nope sorry we're all pathfinders here. Even when I'm CN, LG, or any other alignment.
I don't need updates in the rules, but I think I will ask something like this (IC) at tables with a lot of players I don't know - is there any situation where you would sit back and watch me die without stabalizing. If the answer is yes, have a fun day I'm out of here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has to yield to the out of game consideration that the characters the venture captain is sending on the mission are completely dependent on what players have shown up to play a game.
There's nothing wrong with religious Pathfinders, unless their religion makes it impossible for them to be a Pathfinder.
Which is exactly why it is necessary for us, as players, to step out of the "what would my character do?" mentality, and instead ask, "what can my character do that will make the game enjoyable for everyone?"
Too much of that makes every character the same and removes players choices and character personality from their character. . You have to find some way of balancing the two.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too much of that makes every character the same and removes players choices and character personality from their character. . You have to find some way of balancing the two.
I actually meant something along the lines of this. :P
"Hold me back! I'm gonna tear your unnatural head off you...hey.. guys.. no seriously, HOLD ME BACK.. you get the left arm..."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an example of how to do things right (At least it feels that way to me), here's a link to a From Shore to Sea pbp I'm in From Shore to Sea Spoiler Present
I'm playing an ex-slave Andoran Oracle of Desna. Very into freedom, fervently anti-slavery, etc.
We have a Chelixian Summoner with a malformed Eidolon "manservent."
It helps that we (the players) already know each other, but we had a little bit of OOC discussion regarding our character's disrespect for each other. Hell, the Chelixian is offensive to at least half the party. The trick is to make sure everybody is having fun. That can happen even with diametrically opposed moralities between characters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our Seeker group consisted(there's oh so many these days) of a druid, a monk, a first-Daemon-worshipping-but-then-Kurgessian archer, a Dagonite pirate and an Asmodean priest. Everyone, but particularly the last two, had some very opposing views. It was always fun!
IIRC, Red Harvest took an hour of back'n forth until somebody buckled. I think at least threats of human sacrifice, a wagon load of insults and one or two offers you can't refuse were involved.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with the inquisitor on the this one, but I think the necromancer and dwarf were surprisingly unprepared. Did no one have a potion, or find one in the course of the adventure? Have a healing kit for a +2 on the heal roll? What would they have done if no one brought a character to the table with UMD or a healing spell on their class list to use a wand of CLW. Did the final foe have a healing potion?
A divine caster whose power comes from prayer really should instead of being expected to act against their deity, be expected to act as their deity would dictate. Once that raise dead came out, I would have considered requiring an atonement if the inquisitor had used her divine magic to heal the necromancer. Perhaps the inquisitor attempting the heal checks would have been a fair compromise, but if our organized play requires that a player completely ignore the consequences of their choices with respect to roleplaying I'm would not be a fan of that ruling.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because a Pharasmin inquisitor believes the necromancer deserves to die, doesn't mean that he has to do it himself.
Inquisitor: "Because I swore an oath to the Pathfinder Society to cooperate, your life is safe in my hands while we remain teammates."
Necromancer: "Thanks, I appreciate that."
Inquisitor: "I also swore an oath to report, so I should tell you that I sent a dossier on you to my church superiors, and they may come to... visit you."
Necromancer: *jumps out window*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The many posts implying that the inquisitor was duty bound to heal the necromancer only serve to motivate me to make sure that the two characters I have capable of taking cure spells, a witch and an inquisitor of Pharasma as it happens, will never inform other party members they are capable of doing so.
Nowhere do the PFS rules state that you must heal party members if you don't want to. Even the Guide to organized play states, under the cooperate section, "Pathfinder agents, no matter which of the eight factions they belong to, are expected to respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering a helping hand." It doesn't say they MUST offer a helping hand, and in this case the Pharasman did an excellent job of staying out of necromancers affairs.
Frankly my own Inquisitor of Pharasma would have just killed the undead the necromancer raised as soon as it stood up. The no PvP rule says you can not voluntarily kill other players, it says nothing about their temporary pets.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is anyone advocating that an atonement would be needed to cast stabilize? Because in my mind, I don't fault the Inquisitor for not healing the necromancer, but I do think he should have kept him from dying. (Maybe wait till he's one hp from death just to emphasize the point.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a spell that would be a great addition to any Inquisitor for things like this: Brand which lasts a day per level. Greater Brand is permanent, and blazes like a torch in the near a visible holy symbol of the faith that bestowed it. Give the Necro a brand, stabalize him, and report to the Venture Captain that they had hired an undead raising Black Necromancer. There are very few areas in Golarion where raising the dead is legal. Taking control of them and raising them are very different, and should be seen as such. Raising them only brings more evil into the world.
There is a spell that would be a great addition to any Inquisitor for things like this: Brand which lasts a day per level. Greater Brand is permanent, and blazes like a torch in the near a visible holy symbol of the faith that bestowed it. Give the Necro a brand, stabalize him, and report to the Venture Captain that they had hired an undead raising Black Necromancer. There are very few areas in Golarion where raising the dead is legal. Taking control of them and raising them are very different, and should be seen as such. Raising them only brings more evil into the world.
I think we already covered the fact that the Society doesn't care if your raising undead. And since brand does in fact hurt the target it would probably fall under the no pvp rule.
|
|
There is a spell that would be a great addition to any Inquisitor for things like this: Brand which lasts a day per level. Greater Brand is permanent, and blazes like a torch in the near a visible holy symbol of the faith that bestowed it. Give the Necro a brand, stabalize him, and report to the Venture Captain that they had hired an undead raising Black Necromancer. There are very few areas in Golarion where raising the dead is legal. Taking control of them and raising them are very different, and should be seen as such. Raising them only brings more evil into the world.I think we already covered the fact that the Society doesn't care if your raising undead. And since brand does in fact hurt the target it would probably fall under the no pvp rule.
The Greater brand is a 4th level spell that does 1d6. The 0-level brand does 1 point of initial damage. Neither breaks the PVP rule, as the rule states you cannot kill the player. You most assuredly can deal damage to your party in any number of ways without breaking the PVP rule. Also, the Society may not care, but city guards do.
City guards are a moot point the Society will send you on missions where your breaking the law if it furthers their goals. And considering willingly AoEing party members who don't want to be in that spell is typically considered PvP then I would believe that yes brand would count. You might get a slide on brand if the player was cool with it but Greater would be a no go anyways since your attaching a permanent condition of being sickened if they are near a holy symbol user of your faith.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Explore Report Cooperate. Those tenants were written that way, because quite frankly Society expects PLAYERS to work together, not just their characters. Which means not being jerks to each other. It also means as stated in the numerous Paladin/Necromancer threads we've had on this topic before, that player cooperation does trump all other considerations. If you have the ability to heal and you don't, you are in essence being a jerk. On the flip-side, this also applies to necromancer characters as well. A necromancer who deliberately raises undead in an area that's going to get the team in trouble, IS also being a jerk.The many posts implying that the inquisitor was duty bound to heal the necromancer only serve to motivate me to make sure that the two characters I have capable of taking cure spells, a witch and an inquisitor of Pharasma as it happens, will never inform other party members they are capable of doing so.
Nowhere do the PFS rules state that you must heal party members if you don't want to. Even the Guide to organized play states, under the cooperate section, "Pathfinder agents, no matter which of the eight factions they belong to, are expected to respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering a helping hand." It doesn't say they MUST offer a helping hand, and in this case the Pharasman did an excellent job of staying out of necromancers affairs.
Frankly my own Inquisitor of Pharasma would have just killed the undead the necromancer raised as soon as it stood up. The no PvP rule says you can not voluntarily kill other players, it says nothing about their temporary pets.
The exact text about cooperating from the Guide to Organized Play reads as follows, "Cooperate: The Society places no moral obligations upon its members, so agents span all races, creeds, and motivations. At any given time, a Pathfinder lodge might house a fiend-summoning Chelaxian, a Silver Crusade paladin, an antiquities-obsessed Osirian necromancer, and a friendly Taldan raconteur. Pathfinder agents, no matter which of the eight factions they belong to, are expected to respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering a helping hand."
The Inquisitor followed, to the letter, the Pathfinder Society rules on Cooperation. They respected the necromancers claims they could raise the dead (by not destroying the undead) and stayed out of the necromancers affair of dying.
If someone is being a jerk for not healing, does that mean that all bad touch clerics are jerks? Combat focused Oracles? Druids that didn't memorize any healing spells that day? What about barbarians that don't share the cure light wounds potions they paid for, are they being a jerk too?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The many posts implying that the inquisitor was duty bound to heal the necromancer only serve to motivate me to make sure that the two characters I have capable of taking cure spells, a witch and an inquisitor of Pharasma as it happens, will never inform other party members they are capable of doing so.
Nowhere do the PFS rules state that you must heal party members if you don't want to. Even the Guide to organized play states, under the cooperate section, "Pathfinder agents, no matter which of the eight factions they belong to, are expected to respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering a helping hand." It doesn't say they MUST offer a helping hand, and in this case the Pharasman did an excellent job of staying out of necromancers affairs.
Frankly my own Inquisitor of Pharasma would have just killed the undead the necromancer raised as soon as it stood up. The no PvP rule says you can not voluntarily kill other players, it says nothing about their temporary pets.
I don't think it's as so much as obligation to heal another character as being a team player. As noted, even a stabilize or a good Heal check would have saved the necromancer PC outside of any other resources. And even if he did heal him, the inquisitor wouldn't have to be nice about it. "Let's drag him back, over this convenient path of bumpy rocks..."
The death of the necromancer character was really two deaths: one for the PC, and one for the time and effort put into that PC (assuming a raise dead couldn't happen).
I think part of the issue is that many people here have different expectations of "Cooperate!". To me, it's grudgingly keeping the party together, even if they may not deserve (to my PC) at the time.
The other part is that some people think the necromancer deserved it. One player being a jerk isn't an excuse for another to be a jerk back and in this case, it escalated to a fairly high level given the ending of the session.
As an aside, a fairly experienced PC will figure out that your witch/inquisitor is capable of casting heal spells (or at least devices to do so), so it won't be much of a secret. In my opinion, you're better off stating that your resources are limited and any healing you may (emphasis there), will be for emergencies only.
As far as killing the zombie when it appeared... once would be amusing to me. Twice would get old, though (especially with material component behind animate dead). Although I think the inquisitor killing the zombie instead of letting the necromancer bleed out would have been a far more preferable method of venting out his frustration.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
If someone is being a jerk for not healing, does that mean that all bad touch clerics are jerks? Combat focused Oracles? Druids that didn't memorize any healing spells that day? What about barbarians that don't share the cure light wounds potions they paid for, are they being a jerk too?
Maybe, that is all situational. The "Cooperate!" rule/tenet is vague because who really wants hardset rules on what that should entail. Which would be more fun to have at the table: a miser who doesn't share anything, buffs only himself, even at the expense of the party as a whole; or a PC who realizes that sometimes expending a healing spell, or giving another PC a potion if needed once in a while? To me, I'd rather play with the barbarian who would share his potion of CLW to bring my healing cleric back to consciousness. At the very least, I'd be hardpressed to enjoy playing with someone who feels that they did the minimum requirement for "cooperate" and don't need to do any more.
The exact text about cooperating from the Guide to Organized Play reads as follows, "Cooperate: The Society places no moral obligations upon its members, so agents span all races, creeds, and motivations. At any given time, a Pathfinder lodge might house a fiend-summoning Chelaxian, a Silver Crusade paladin, an antiquities-obsessed Osirian necromancer, and a friendly Taldan raconteur. Pathfinder agents, no matter which of the eight factions they belong to, are expected to respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering a helping hand."The Inquisitor followed, to the letter, the Pathfinder Society rules on Cooperation. They respected the necromancers claims they could raise the dead (by not destroying the undead) and stayed out of the necromancers affair of dying.
If someone is being a jerk for not healing, does that mean that all bad touch clerics are jerks? Combat focused Oracles? Druids that didn't memorize any healing spells that day? What about barbarians that don't share the cure light wounds potions they paid for, are they being a jerk too?
Just to ask if the Inquisitor who had been riding the necro about raising dead had been laying out and dying and the necro could have saved him would you still feel like it was all cool? I mean if so then I can see paladins ridding the world of evil by letting them die out or evil dealing with those holy Silver Crusade jerks by "cooperating" just enough to finish the mission and then staying out of their affairs when they are dying.
|
|
Necro could have saved him. Good for him. Wouldn't mean anything except another thing for the Necro player to use to use to provoke the Inquisitor player.
I would generally expect the Paladin ridding the world of Evil or the Evil ridding the world of Paladin would take a much more active role than allowing them to bleed out. And we obviously aren't talking about PCs here, since PCs aren't permitted to be evil, so I'm really not sure what sort of cooperating you're talking about. Unless you're talking about "My sheet says N so it's legal!" but are actually Evil black necromancers, in which case...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your saying that if the Necro lets the inquisitor bleed out its provocation, but if a good character lets a "evil character" bleed out its RP?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole thread reeks of the Trolly Problem
It isn't perfect, but the necromancer is both the troll hurtling towards 5 folks, and the man on the second track, at least from the perspective of the character. If he saves the necromancer, the necromancer will continue to do wrong (kill the five folks on the track), if he fails to save the necromancer he will have also conducted a moral wrong (killing the man on the siding.)
Except in this case the switch is already flipped to point at the man on the siding. So do nothing, one man dies, do something and a greater moral wrong (from the characters context) will occur.
From a role playing/pharasmian perspective there probably was the third option, which was kill the necromancer the second he raised the dead, but for the sake of the society we let that one pass. But he absolutely would have violated his faith to have saved the necromancers life, it is the biggest sin against his faith to create undead, and a tenant of his faith to hunt and slay those who do, and the abominations they create.
The pathfinder society requires that they work together, and not interfere, but it doesn't require that they help. His solution of non-interference meets all his obligations. From a character perspective, he is golden.
From a player perspective, that is another issue, but I don't know what to say, bringing a necromancer, which is an acknowledged contentious class to the table vs letting another players character die. It's sort of a comparison of premeditated jerkiness vs jerkiness in the moment. In which case, at least by our modern legal standards, we weight premeditation as more sever, so still I will side with the inquisitor.
While I see the Necromancer as contentious I ask the question I asked above. Do we ask for atonement from a cleric of an evil diety who saves the life of a Paladin?
Though I do see on possible solution to the actual trolley problem and am trying to think of how it could play out here. If the people are any real distance from the switch one could choose to derail the trolley by lifting the switch to the middle position. The trolley derails possibly injuring but probably not killing anyone aboard and has a good chance of stopping before it reaches any of the 6 people down the line.
Understand from a character perspective would this person assuming they can have themselves retrieved and rezzed ever consider working with a Worshiper of Pharasma again? We now have a character with bad tasted in their mouth as much as the players. Even if the only reason for raising the undead was to raise the Inquisitors hackles that inquisitor still allowed said undead to be of use until either it died or until they were done we don't know which.
|
|
So your saying that if the Necro lets the inquisitor bleed out its provocation, but if a good character lets a "evil character" bleed out its RP?
That's not what I said - the "Good for him" thing was sarcasm, I was saying that he could save him or not and I wouldn't care either way, they'd been at each other's throats all day, had established that each was effectively the enemy of the other, and were under no obligation to help. Hell, the inquisitor even tried to back out because they knew it would be an issue (which would have been a more correct action for the character), but the others pressured them to continue, presumably to avoid screwing the entire party by costing them the adventure's rewards.
I'm looking at the entire discussion above that I quoted on what cooperation means. If its fine to let someone bleed out because they violated your characters religious tenets then where do we draw the line?
|
|
No, I would generally expect cooperation. In fact, the inqusitor's player attempted this - he warned the other player that undead would be a problem. He didn't force the necromancer player to not do anything, but made it clear that if he created undead, it would be a serious problem... which is exactly what happened. What really pushed this over the line was the open hostility to the point of direct provocation on the part of the necromancer. That's what pushed it over the line to where any expectation of cooperation was essentially cut off between those two characters. I wouldn't have expected either one to be forced to aid the other at that point (and really, at that point they should have packed up and headed back to the lodge, let the VC know it wasn't working, and handed the mission off to a new team).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagreed- sometimes s%$@ happens and its only a game. What do you all think?
The inquisitor not healing the necromancer is basically coming to another persons house to play cards, and during the game breaks his chair over the table. Then he leaves.
In PFS, your fellow player doesn't get to just roll a new character. The GM doesn't get to build the necromancer back up from the setback of a raise dead. Intentionally letting your party member die is forcing them to expend resources or removing their character from play.
It's only a game. Don't break other people's toys.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't raise dead and move on with your life. It is only a game after all.Why not, the Society is not a good aligned organisation and it permits its members to raise undead in order to achieve its goals. If your character cannot work with that then they may have to consider why they remain part of such an organisation.
Then don't b***h when another character whose ENTIRE PREMISE is based on hunting and destroying undead decides to do minimum cooperation.
You are not entitled to his resources, and your actions have consequences.The inquisitors was not in the wrong, the necromancer was.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
By the time we get to the necromancer unconscious, there was probably already a serious problem around the table. Discussing the in-character responsibilities of the inquisitor doesn't address them.
(I weasel around with "probably" because I wasn't there and we don't have information about how upset the players were. But let's assume that nobody left the game happy.)
Before we know more about the agreement the characters made earlier in the adventure, and the context of the battle that led to the rogue's death, I don't know what else we can say.
Is there any scenario like this in the GM101 "Deck of Many Situations"?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just heal the guy and move on with your life. It's only a game after all.
But he then has to sit with this guy again; and this player knows that he can whatever he wants with no repercussions. If you have a lot of tables on a weekly basis, not sitting at his table is an option; but if not, you have now become a door mat for this players bad actions. Should the player have stood up for himself OOC and said, 'Dude, stop being a jerk.'? Sure; but he did not. He elected to keep it IC, as was his right. I play a character that is 180 degrees from me as a person and have had IC issues with some of my closest friends. But keeping it IC helps friendships.
It is just a game could be said to the player of the Necro as well. It is just a piece of paper. You took a chance that you could play how you wanted, when you wanted and got bitten by it when the one person you were figuratively flipping off was the one person who could have saved your character.
Rather than getting upset about it and throwing a fit, perhaps (and this is where personal responsibility comes in to play) he should have taken it as a lesson learned and carried on.
Just my opinion.
S.