I still wish we had more info. I would love to know the exact role that undead played in finishing up. I want to how much his faith faltered watching something else takes hits that might have been meant for him. Did he pray for guidance every time that creature struck an enemy? I'm not saying there should have been an issue with it, but if people think that even stabilizing the necro would have been an alignment infraction then what about gaining help from said undead. Did the Inquisitor receive any other benefits from the Necro we don't know about. So much info isn't available to see exactly how this played out.
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.
I'll say something here I say on a lot of arguments. If that's your stance that's fine as long as its always your stance.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But he then has to sit with this guy again; and this player knows that he can whatever he wants with no repercussions.Just heal the guy and move on with your life. It's only a game after all.
It's all in how you do it. Saving his life doesn't have to be a capitulation, it can be a show of power and cooperation.
Besides, isn't it worse to sit at a table with a guy who believes you willfully killed one of his characters? I don't know that I would want to be at a table with those two players until they've had a chance to resolve their differences.
But he then has to sit with this guy again; and this player knows that he can whatever he wants with no repercussions.Just heal the guy and move on with your life. It's only a game after all.
It's all in how you do it. Saving his life doesn't have to be a capitulation, it can be a show of power and cooperation.
Besides, isn't it worse to sit at a table with a guy who believes you willfully killed one of his characters? I don't know that I would want to be at a table with those two players until they've had a chance to resolve their differences.
Or worse if he survives and the same to characters are together again how can we see that playing out? I would hope one of them would play a different character but then again if they didn't we know there will be bad blood.
Under no circumstances should another player be required to use their resources on your behalf. Including spells, wands, potions, and actions.
In my mind PVP requires actions on the part of the player that cause harm to another character, not in action of the part of player that allows consequences to play out as they otherwise would.
Neither player is completely innocent in this situation, but I think the necromancer got what he deserved. If this were a home game, and the person could simply build a new character with WBL and equal to the party level most people would probably just ignore this as say "Oh well!". But the people that are upset at the Inquisitor seem to upset because the necromancer player has to pay for a Raise Dead or the character sheet can serve as kindling.
But I think it's 100% reasonable. They both broke the rule of don't be a dick. But the necromancer broke it first, regardless of whether or not it was for the good of the party. Pressumably, the Inquisitor did not destroy the zombie because that would have been considered PVP. In a home game, I can tell you that I played a Paladin of Iomedae that found out he had a necromancer in the party after he created a zombie. My paladin destroyed the zombie, and then told the necromancer that in no uncertain terms that if he did that again he would be dead. My paladin ended up dead at the hands of his secret zombie horde. I had discussed out of character with the player about how things were going to proceed, and we both knew the consequences. Of course PFS is a bit different and the players aren't necessarily friends.
No one can tell you not to create undead in PFS. But by the same token no one should tell you that you have to heal anyone. Or spend your resource to help them in anyway. it's nice if they do. You're much more likely to succeed, but it isn't and shouldn't be required.
Okay so as far as I see it this problem should have been fixed before the game begins. Knowing there may be some serious character conflicts the inquisitor and the necromancer should have agreed to be seated at different tables.
Is rolling a skill check using resources?
And we only have a 2nd hand account that the player was being a dick.
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.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But he then has to sit with this guy again; and this player knows that he can whatever he wants with no repercussions.Just heal the guy and move on with your life. It's only a game after all.
It's all in how you do it. Saving his life doesn't have to be a capitulation, it can be a show of power and cooperation.
Besides, isn't it worse to sit at a table with a guy who believes you willfully killed one of his characters? I don't know that I would want to be at a table with those two players until they've had a chance to resolve their differences.
It is not the character that did not capitulate, I am sure that in RP, he could have made it a wonderful scene; it is the player. It tells him that no matter what you do, I will still save you and your time investment. It is the equivalent of the 'participation' award that sports and education has become. There is no need to exercise personal responsibility because no matter what you do or how you act, you will be taken care of, even rewarded for it.
I don't know the situation as to whether he was indeed trying to get under the other character's skin or just trying his best to finish the mission; but he erred in judgement when he assumed the target of his jibes would keep him alive.
Perhaps 16 PP is a fair price for learning that even in a non PVP game, you can't do whatever makes you smile.
S.
|
|
Or worse if he survives and the same to characters are together again how can we see that playing out? I would hope one of them would play a different character but then again if they didn't we know there will be bad blood.But he then has to sit with this guy again; and this player knows that he can whatever he wants with no repercussions.Just heal the guy and move on with your life. It's only a game after all.
It's all in how you do it. Saving his life doesn't have to be a capitulation, it can be a show of power and cooperation.
Besides, isn't it worse to sit at a table with a guy who believes you willfully killed one of his characters? I don't know that I would want to be at a table with those two players until they've had a chance to resolve their differences.
You mean if the Dwarf had managed to stabilize him with Heal? No better and no worse, because at that point I think it is bad blood between *players*, not bad blood between *characters*.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am fairly certain that is not legal in PFSOnly if the death was caused by legal circumstances. I consider the inquisitor's actions PVP and thus illegal.
TOZ, I generally agree with you on most things, but you really do consider the death to be a result of PVP? Are you honestly staying that a player refusing to use his character to heal a dying character is PVP? Because, if you do, then you are essentially saying that a character who can heal another must do so, or they violate the PVP rule.
That's the extension of your view, isn't it? (I mean, that's how it strikes me, at any rate.)
|
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?
Maybe, maybe not it depends very much on the deity, if your deity was Palathos the Paladin killer, than yes, Kniver the Corrupter, whose purpose was to bring about the moral fall of agents of good deities, then healing the paladin might be exactly what you should do. In this non-contrived case, you asking a zealot of the "go kill all the undead and their makers" faith to take active steps to prevent that.
Couple of scenarios, you see a man choking and you:
a) don't know how to save them, do nothing, and they die
b) don't know how to save them, try random s%$~, and they die (faster)
c) know how to save them, but choose not to, and they die
d) know how to save them, but choose not to because you detest them, and they die
e) know how to save, but know they have a illness that is contagious that will harm you (lets say hepatitis since it has less stigma of homephobia and that would be more like d), so you do nothing, and they die.
There are a lot of variations on a theme, but in general, when is inaction morally wrong?
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.
The Trolly Problem is intentionally absolute/binary to avoid such solutions. Your Kirk'ing this one by changing the problem from a no-win scenario, to one with where you can win, avoiding the central issue of decision and culpability.
Now if going to different tables was impossible I would have to say the necromancer should not have been as antagonistic. Given how the worshipers of pharsama feel about undead, would not have been better to keep a led on the fact that you raise the dead. There still are plenty of nercromatic spells you can use that untimely wont antagonize the guy who job is to hunt down undead and necromancer
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mean if the Dwarf had managed to stabilize him with Heal? No better and no worse, because at that point I think it is bad blood between *players*, not bad blood between *characters*.
Perhaps the /Player/ should think twice in that case about how he acts. The inquisitor did not kill him, just did not go out of his way to save him. The inquisitor told him in no uncertain terms that he did not want him to raise the dead; but did not take any action to prevent him. He did not kill the zombie or let the monsters in the dungeon free pass to eat the Necro's face by taking his action to 'tie his shoe'. What he did do was let the Neco reap what he had sown. If you don't want to be a team player enough to respect another player's wishes, don't expect the team to save you. He had a chance to stabilize on his own and the dwarf had three shots to stabilize him as well.
Personal. Responsibility.
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?Maybe, maybe not it depends very much on the deity, if your deity was Palathos the Paladin killer, than yes, Kniver the Corrupter, whose purpose was to bring about the moral fall of agents of good deities, then healing the paladin might be exactly what you should do. In this non-contrived case, you asking a zealot of the "go kill all the undead and their makers" faith to take active steps to prevent that.
Couple of scenarios, you see a man choking and you:
a) don't know how to save them, do nothing, and they die
b) don't know how to save them, try random s!!#, and they die (faster)
c) know how to save them, but choose not to, and they die
d) know how to save them, but choose not to because you detest them, and they die
e) know how to save, but know they have a illness that is contagious that will harm you (lets say hepatitis since it has less stigma of homephobia and that would be more like d), so you do nothing, and they die.There are a lot of variations on a theme, but in general, when is inaction morally wrong?
Morally I don't see a problem with the characters/players choice. But its not just morals at stake, your working for an organization that encourages cooperation and as such should strive to maintain that feeling. If the guy was dead outright there wasn't much that could have been done but here was a chance to show that the society's trust in you wasn't misplaced when they sent you out. If the situation had been different on who was bleeding out my position wouldn't change but I feel like some posters would be jumping all over the necro for letting his companion bleed out after a fight. And I'll say it again we still don't know enough specifics on why we had an undead or what help it may it or the necro may have provided.
|
|
But he then has to sit with this guy again; and this player knows that he can whatever he wants with no repercussions.Just heal the guy and move on with your life. It's only a game after all.
It's all in how you do it. Saving his life doesn't have to be a capitulation, it can be a show of power and cooperation.
Besides, isn't it worse to sit at a table with a guy who believes you willfully killed one of his characters? I don't know that I would want to be at a table with those two players until they've had a chance to resolve their differences.
It is not the character that did not capitulate, I am sure that in RP, he could have made it a wonderful scene; it is the player. It tells him that no matter what you do, I will still save you and your time investment. It is the equivalent of the 'participation' award that sports and education has become. There is no need to exercise personal responsibility because no matter what you do or how you act, you will be taken care of, even rewarded for it.
I don't know the situation as to whether he was indeed trying to get under the other character's skin or just trying his best to finish the mission; but he erred in judgement when he assumed the target of his jibes would keep him alive.
Perhaps 16 PP is a fair price for learning that even in a non PVP game, you can't do whatever makes you smile.
S.
I'm not talking about RP. I'm talking about ooc, you make the point that you have the power to allow them to die, but that this one time you are going to save them, even though they broke their promise and don't deserve it. You make sure they understand the consequences they have brought on themselves, and also that you are a good enough person that you are going to help them past them...this time.
It's not rocket science...it's pretty standard parenting.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am fairly certain that is not legal in PFSOnly if the death was caused by legal circumstances. I consider the inquisitor's actions PVP and thus illegal.
Naturally, you are welcome to rule differently at your table.
I will. I am just curious, how do you define PvP?
S.
Much like pornography, when I see it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am fairly certain that is not legal in PFSOnly if the death was caused by legal circumstances. I consider the inquisitor's actions PVP and thus illegal.
Naturally, you are welcome to rule differently at your table.
This. They are both Pathfinders, they need to cooperate. I don't think the inquisitor should just stand back and stick the other PC with a 7000-8000gp / 20 pp fine just because they had a disagreement.
If someone threatened to hit me with an alignment shift for healing another PC to keep them from dying, I would inform the GM that this will be the last time I'm playing at their table, heal the PC, and eat the cost of atonement.
At that point in the table (I believe the OP said it was the final fight) I would have just handwaved the stabilization check, and judging from the way it sounds like they were going after each other, inform them that if they can't work together in the future then I don't want either of them at my tables. They don't have to like each other, but by Gorum they are going to learn to work together, even if it kills them (well, their PC's).
|
|
TOZ, I generally agree with you on most things, but you really do consider the death to be a result of PVP?I am fairly certain that is not legal in PFSOnly if the death was caused by legal circumstances. I consider the inquisitor's actions PVP and thus illegal.
The inquisitor outright stated he would kill the necromancer if given the chance, as I understand it. So yes.
|
|
I played a Necromancy specialist Wizard all the way to level 12.
In that time I animated dead, ONCE.
The character was from Geb, so viewed the use of a dead body as just using a resource, but did not animate dead because he knew how others felt about it.
(Also because I was too lazy to work out the stats for raising the monsters.)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not talking about RP. I'm talking about ooc, you make the point that you have the power to allow them to die, but that this one time you are going to save them, even though they broke their promise and don't deserve it. You make sure they understand the consequences they have brought on themselves, and also that you are a good enough person that you are going to help them past them...this time.
It's not rocket science...it's pretty standard parenting.
With respect, if the inquisitor is required to keep the necromancer alive, then this stern talking-to falls on deaf ears.
"I'll save you ... this time. Next time, I'll leave you to ---"
"No, you'll save me every time. It's required. If you don't, it would be player-versus-player, and that's not allowed in this campaign."
|
|
I'm not talking about RP. I'm talking about ooc, you make the point that you have the power to allow them to die, but that this one time you are going to save them, even though they broke their promise and don't deserve it. You make sure they understand the consequences they have brought on themselves, and also that you are a good enough person that you are going to help them past them...this time.
It's not rocket science...it's pretty standard parenting.
With respect, if the inquisitor is required to keep the necromancer alive, then this stern talking-to falls on deaf ears.
"I'll save you ... this time. Next time, I'll leave you to ---"
"No, you'll save me every time. It's required. If you don't, it would be player-versus-player, and that's not allowed in this campaign."
I don't think the inquisitor is required to keep the necromancer alive.
Looking back over the OP's post I have another question for the people who would force an atonement for healing the guy? Why would you not force one for continuing on at all with the undead? If letting him not face repercussions for this is all fine in the spirit of cooperation then why wouldn't healing him be?
|
The most interesting item was the "evil" guy gets pvped. On the converse I've played many fun encounters with Andorans vs. my Chelaxians and this kind of "Im not going to ... because .... doesn't ocurr on both sides."
A pharasman paladin even burned some ogre bodies I intended to raise as defenders. I and my fellow Asmodean cleric simply gave him a hand (golf clapping).
So yes, I never thought pvp was allowed via Asimov's 3rd law of robotics. The number of people who have no problem with it is similarly interesting and confirms my table test questionaire is needed in future games...because I am interested in how/if this theory is widely held.
1 5th level zombie might be the difference in a win or a loss in some fights its meat that can save resources by not putting someone else in harms way.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've retconned plenty of other deaths as well, mostly due to my own errors. When I realize I hit someone with the high-tier stats, or miscalculated the damage on something, I usually tell the dead PC's player "I messed up, so your character is unconscious but stable now." especially if the fight has progressed to where I can't say if it actually led to the death or not. I don't consider this any different.
|
|
Is there any scenario like this in the GM101 "Deck of Many Situations"?
Situation: There is a cleric of Sarenrae and a cleric of Rovagug in the party. Due to the fluff of their characters, the players say their characters are going to refuse to help each other.
Complication: Did I forget to mention that they are basically supposed to kill other on sight?
|
|
I'm not talking about RP. I'm talking about ooc, you make the point that you have the power to allow them to die, but that this one time you are going to save them, even though they broke their promise and don't deserve it. You make sure they understand the consequences they have brought on themselves, and also that you are a good enough person that you are going to help them past them...this time.
It's not rocket science...it's pretty standard parenting.
Your parenting and mine differ. I warn my child of the consequences of his actions and if he chooses to disobey, he pays them. Simple as that.
S.