Jessex, it's not as obvious as that. Without being there, I would guess the "talk" at the beginning is probably around a 2 on the offense scale. As described, the necromancer took it in stride.
The facts as presented are the only things we have to go on. The one in the wrong is the necro player. It is and always has been that simple.
You agree to something you abide by that agreement. If you can't there are consequences and you don't get to whine when you don't like what they are.
We don't have any real facts, though. Anyone who's making confident declarations should consider what bias led to the facts they have. I don't reject your conclusion, but I don't accept it either.
I think both characters violated agreements they made. I (and most here, I think) agree the necromancer was in the wrong. If you're going to only allow one of them to be wrong, though, it won't be simple determining which one it is.
|
Who said anything about GM's? R4est of the post goes from unfounded presumption.And you have no way of enforcing that so it does make you a door mat. Either you get up when they sit down at a table or what?"Hey man, that was really uncool. We agreed that your character wouldn't raise undead during this scenario, and you went back on your word. I stabilized your character this time, so you wouldn't lose your character, but if you are going to play like that in the future, please don't sit at the same table as me."Just reposting this.
I said that he would not be welcome at my table.
If a player cannot play the game without griefing other players, they are not welcome at any table where I am sitting. I will tell them that.
That does not make me a door mat.
Just jumping back in to point out this assertion that GM's have no recourse for problem players is 1000% false.
Try reading The Fox's posts again. He said he would not seat certain individuals at his tables, that is to say tables that he is GM'ing (at least, that is how I understood his posts). You then said he has no say in it and called him a doormat. Maybe you just misinterpreted what The Fox said, and this is just a big misunderstanding.
Edit: Made statement less confrontational.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd've not penalized the Inquisitor for refusing to heal the dying Necromancer. Necromancer was told not to do a thing, and did it anyway.
I'd've strongly suggested (as a GM) that if the Inquisitor healed the Necromancer, that they take the opportunity to roleplay a Pharasman religionist.
"You have been granted a choice. Turn aside from this fell path of abomination and ruin. You have glimpsed the Boneyard, and She who Weaves the Skein of Birth and Death, has, through me, granted you an opportunity to atone for past sins and transgressions."
"Do not expect any healing from the Faith of Pharasma in the future; you have received all the Benedictions that She will offer you."
Then write a Chronicle note saying that healing spells cast by Pharasmites won't work on this character...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Grammarian?The title of this thread is driving me crazy. Please to fix, web team?Suffer stuffy gramarian suffer!
You missed the punctuation error:
"Suffer, stuffy grammarian! Suffer!"(And now I want to go to Build-a-Bear and make a "suffering grammarian"...hm...)
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grammarian?The title of this thread is driving me crazy. Please to fix, web team?Suffer stuffy gramarian suffer!You missed the punctuation error:
"Suffer, stuffy grammarian! Suffer!"(And now I want to go to Build-a-Bear and make a "suffering grammarian"...hm...)
That felt more like a grammatical error, though - I was just addressing spelling. Correcting his grammar would have played right into his paws. ^_^
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In before ban on religion in PFS.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
*coughs*
All I could take from OP was two passive-aggressive dicks attempting to one-up each other until someone lost more than an eyeball.
Personally, the camps mentioned earlier? I'd add the 'RP it in THE FACE' camp. Not 'hug it out' but along the lines of 'stabilize' the offending necromancer and then, well... one's an inquisitor, right? The best inquisitors I've ever seen never even had to torture anyone...
But then, that's hearkening back to *roleplay*, which doesn't seem to happen a lot at face-to-face tables unless you've got good group chemistry.
Allowing a party member to bleed out isn't roleplay, it's a lack of roll-play, imo. Save them, *then* make their existence miserable within the confines of Society play without violating the rule of 'don't be a dick'.
Wasn't at the table, don't have enough information, but if this situation played out when I was running I think I'd have a nice side-chat with the necromancer to point out that Pharasma wasn't *quite* ready for them *YET*, but their number just got bumped up in line should something like this happen again... and then have means of stabilization available to the party.
If the party THEN decided as a unit to withhold stabilizing at that point, well, that's a whole *different* can of worms, isn't it?
Just reposting this.I said that he would not be welcome at my table.
If a player cannot play the game without griefing other players, they are not welcome at any table where I am sitting. I will tell them that.
That does not make me a door mat.
Jessex, your method of standing up for yourself seems rather passive aggressive to me. I prefer a more direct approach.
If I was a third party—the dwarf's player, say—sitting at that table, I'd probably be uncomfortable sitting at a table with either player in the future. But if the inquisitor's player had said, "I'm going to stabilize your character this time, but don't grief other players in the future," then I—as the dwarf's player—would say, "yeah, I agree with this guy. You are getting off lucky by him saving your character. If you play games in the future the way you played today, you will be unwelcome at my table too."
It gives the necromancer's player an opportunity to change his behavior.
Your solution does not do that. Instead, he is just pissed off, and so is everyone else, and that kind of poison can be very bad for a lodge, especially smaller lodges.
That may be a consequence for a group that meets with a smallish pool of players, but it really is no consequence when playing with more transient players like at a convention or with larger groups.
Perhaps the best solution would have been for the GM to see that the dwarf had a number of rounds to stabilize the necromancer and then hand wave the stabilization roll. But again, the griefing necromancer player, if the OP's assessment is correct and he was griefing, faces no real consequence of that.
So do Chelexians get to let Andoran freedom fighters bleed out if they find them freeing slaves that might have other wise been properly sold to "good" owners?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Talonhawke, the answer is yes, PCs "get to" let one another die on missions.
I ran a table once where the gnome cleric used up all her channel positive energy uses out of combat before the first encounter, just to be silly. That led to two PC deaths when combat got hairy. She was allowed to do that.
I'm just making sure, there seems some predisposition towards the Necro. I'm fine with consistency but if people would be appalled at a good character being let bleed out by an evil one then I have an issue.
|
So do Chelexians get to let Andoran freedom fighters bleed out if they find them freeing slaves that might have other wise been properly sold to "good" owners?
A player of a hard core Chelexian should probably choose to not sign up for a "go free the slaves mission." Its one thing to have an RP incident that is ancillary to the scenario, but when you choose to participate in a scenario that supports a faction that is antithetical to your characters world view, then you are going to have non-constructive RP conflict.
|
The general assumption should be cooperate. That said, you can't force someone to do anything aside from preventing direct "I cast a spell/swing a sword at X" PVP. Is it bad form to not help? Generally yes. I don't disagree that it was something of a jerk move on the part of the inquisitor to do what he did, and it's not what I would have done. I just don't think it should be punished directly - he was acting within the agency granted to his character, and not without provocation. I also wouldn't fault any characters who found out about the incident to refuse to party with the inquisitor (at least without a very good explanation) because they're an unreliable party member - I doubt the dwarf will keep quiet about the incident when they get back to the Grand Lodge.
So do Chelexians get to let Andoran freedom fighters bleed out if they find them freeing slaves that might have other wise been properly sold to "good" owners?A player of a hard core Chelexian should probably choose to not sign up for a "go free the slaves mission." Its one thing to have an RP incident that is ancillary to the scenario, but when you choose to participate in a scenario that supports a faction that is antithetical to your characters world view, then you are going to have non-constructive RP conflict.
I meant as an ancillary thing. I agree if you don't want to free slaves you should probably change over. If your going to steal the High magistrates Diary and the guy frees the magistrates slaves is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
|
|
So do Chelexians get to let Andoran freedom fighters bleed out if they find them freeing slaves that might have other wise been properly sold to "good" owners?
For a hellknight that might lose powers if they don't, possibly.
For all others no.
Mind you, its hard to argue you haven't been aiding and abbeting them the entire time on a mission.
So do Chelexians get to let Andoran freedom fighters bleed out if they find them freeing slaves that might have other wise been properly sold to "good" owners?For a hellknight that might lose powers if they don't, possibly.
For all others no.
Mind you, its hard to argue you haven't been aiding and abbeting them the entire time on a mission.
You mean kinda like how that zombie may have aided in the Inquisitors survival?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just making sure there seems some predisposition towards the Necro. I'm fine with consistency but if people would be appalled at a good character being let bleed out by an evil one then I have an issue.
Throughout this thread you seem to have latched on to the idea that people have supported the right of the Inquisitor to let the Necromancer die because he was/did something evil. That is not the case. I think most of the people who defended the Inquisitor's choice of inaction (myself included) did so because;
1: There was a broken in game agreement based upon in game ideology.
2: A player/character is not obligated to use their abilities to aid another player/character.
3: It was a case of actions having consequences.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the alignment of the characters in this case. However, if the Inquisitor was Good aligned, then I would say there was a problem based on an alignment infraction, but if he is Neutral aligned, as the Deity he worships, then there is no rules issue at all.
And as you cannot be Evil in PFS, the questions become;
"Can a Neutral character allow a fellow character (Good or Neutral) to die through inaction?"
Yes, by definition a Neutral character isn't required to help someone and shouldn't be penalized.
"Can a Good character allow a fellow character (Good or Neutral) to die through inaction?"
Possibly, however doing so would almost certainly be an alignment infraction.
"Does the Deity of a Divine empowered character have any sway on the situation?"
Usually, because there are mechanical penalties in place for violating the tenets of a character's faith, and that needs to be taken into account as well. A player should not be forced to take a penalty to his character for violating his Deity's strictures, just to save another character.
|
|
If i roll a a high damage output wayang fighter with 06 wisdom and -2 Will, go to scenarios with a lot of enemies with confusion or charms spells and be enchanted and ended killing party members, is it my fault ?
If you created such a character specifically with the idea that he would be an ideal PK puppet, then yes, you would basically be a griefer.
However, in most cases, chances are that you just built a hyper specialized character that has a very unfortunate weakness, and charms and confusion would probably be your least concern for such a weak minded character.
That Idea comes from multiple post out right degrading the act as something that should throw infractions at a character every time they do it.
I agree that if the undead was animated for no other reason than to be a dick then yes something should have been said/done. But we also are missing exact info on the why and the how of that undead. Why exactly was is raised and what exactly did it contribute to finishing up. The Inquisitor finished begrudgingly but we don't know what help he received that wasn't returned.
It seems to me the undead was raised because things went to pot and the party needed some replacement members.
Which is what I lean toward, especially since we lack specifics on anything else going on with it. We have a second hand feeling it was a dick move but nothing concrete. And its less of an issue to me that a deal was broken if it resulted from trying to finish the mission. If my party's paladin ask that Infernal healing not be used on him and I agree but come end of a battle he is down and that's the only chance of saving him , by Moradin I'm saving him.
|
|
The act of raising the undead being Evil, or why the player chose to do it are irrelevant.
The Inquisitor follows a Deity that not only forbids, but actively wars against the undead and the characters made an agreement based upon that to begin the adventure. The agreement was broken and the Inquisitor stayed with the party, but refused to aid the one who Violated the agreement and his beliefs.
With just that and no inferred or implied intentions, emotions or situational caveats, it was well within the rules for the Inquisitor to do as they did. Maybe not the nicest choice, but definitely legal.
And alignment has nothing to do with it... unless of course the Inquisitor was Good, in which case that is a different story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The title of this thread is driving me crazy. Please to fix, web team?
Yes. Given the thread title, the only practical solution is to ban PFS characters from becoming landlords. If there are no tenants, their religious beliefs are irrelevant.
|
|
That Idea comes from multiple post out right degrading the act as something that should throw infractions at a character every time they do it.
That was something of a side discussion stemming out of the discussion thread of "Man, the necromancer issue sure seems to come up really often" more so than the justification for permitting the behavior of the inquisitor. I do think animating undead should be banned in PFS because it is, in lore, unabashedly evil - it's not something with wiggle room, or something that can be borderline if you use it for a good cause, it is completely and utterly depraved and evil to the core, and I don't believe it is compatible with lore to have a neutral character who animates undead. There's still room for necromancers of the controlling and destroying undead varieties, just not the creating undead varieties. However, I acknowledge that it's not currently banned, and I wouldn't actually throw out an alignment infraction because of the implied support from campaign management for allowing it - it certainly wouldn't be the first thing I disagreed with them about :)
Jessex, please tell me what you thinks happens at the next table where these two players are sitting together.
By letting the necromancer die, the inquisitor's player has ESCALATED the disagreement between the two players.
Most of us agree there problems on both sides. Our primary disagreement is with the people who imply the necromancer didn't do anything wrong. Some are even stating that the necromancer should have done more including actively killing the inquisitor directly.
I agree the inquisitor's player escalated the problem and that was wrong. I will also state (based on the only info we have), the necromancer's player started the problem and that was wrong.
I think the inquisitor was slightly more in the wrong, but only slightly. But that is a quibbling distinction and the case can easily be made either way (see last several pages). But I feel it is willfully disingenuous to suggest the necromancer was wholly in the right.
|
|
Oh come on! Buying land is the only way pfs characters can avoid being murderhobos!The title of this thread is driving me crazy. Please to fix, web team?Yes. Given the thread title, the only practical solution is to ban PFS characters from becoming landlords.
And isn't that what this entire thread is all about really? Someones murder"tenants"?
|
|
ot be Evil in PFS, the questions become;
"Can a Neutral character allow a fellow character (Good or Neutral) to die through inaction?"
Yes, by definition a Neutral character isn't required to help someone and shouldn't be penalized.
"Can a Good character allow a fellow character (Good or Neutral) to die through inaction?"
Possibly, however doing so would almost certainly be an alignment infraction.
"Does the Deity of a Divine empowered character have any sway on the situation?"
So I think "Fellow Character" probably should read ally, because from the characters RP perspective there is no difference between an NPC and a PC, just those who I work with and those that I work against. (and we are talking alignment and RP here)
You last question I think is what the pivot point here is, if your deity (whose faith is supposed to be a mechanical constraint of your characters actions), would identify a certain type of character as an enemy of the faith, then should you treat them as such? If so, then the scenarios you described aren't valid, because the necromancer (once he raised the dead) went from being an ally to an enemy. In that that moment, tolerance of that enemy for the greater good was a stretch for the inquisitor.
So, can a good/neutral character allow an enemy to die through inaction?
Gosh that is a sticky question, when my characters are presented with living humanoid enemies ("people"), should I use non-lethal damage? Should I stabilize and take prisoners?
|
|
The necromancer however memorized animate dead with the intent of using it and relying on in a social setting people will be complicit to not upsetting anyone.
I had assumed that as well, but the necromancer may have used his arcane bond, or a scroll. The scroll may have been purchased before the scenario. So while he may have memorized the spell, he may have just had it available.
So it is harder to know his motivations.
He also may have not had proper time to change spell selection. It might have been his only worth having* choice as a school spell.
*worth having denoted by what the scenario pertained to compared to his spell list.
|
|
So, can a good/neutral character allow an enemy to die through inaction?
My Pharasmite Paladin reached 7th level before any party she was in actually killed another humanoid without her intervening to heal/channel/lay on hands to ensure that all opponents lived.
Most times, I also roleplayed delivering the sermon:
"Through the auspices of Pharasma, you have seen the Boneyard, and been pulled back. You will meet Her in the Boneyard again. Spend this extra span of days aiding others; talk to your mother, assist midwives in delivering healthy children, and tend to those whose time has come, so that their deeds and lives are remembered and cherished by those they touched."
PFS cannot enforce the setting fiction on its player base; it's at its best when the setting fiction is embraced by the players. I'm firmly in the Inquisitor Did No Wrong camp...though I'd've let the Neccy come one point shy of true death, stabilized him, and made sure he woke up in the VO's office.
|
|
So, can a good/neutral character allow an enemy to die through inaction?My Pharasmite Paladin reached 7th level before any party she was in actually killed another humanoid without her intervening to heal/channel/lay on hands to ensure that all opponents lived.
Most times, I also roleplayed delivering the sermon:
"Through the auspices of Pharasma, you have seen the Boneyard, and been pulled back. You will meet Her in the Boneyard again. Spend this extra span of days aiding others; talk to your mother, assist midwives in delivering healthy children, and tend to those whose time has come, so that their deeds and lives are remembered and cherished by those they touched."
This is awesome, and I actually tend to agree, that a good character (PC/NPC) should refrain from killing people where possible.
PFS cannot enforce the setting fiction on its player base;
Why shouldn't it? (If the guide effectively says this please correct me I haven't read it that closely in a while.) Some character classes are mechanically constrained by setting fiction, otherwise we need a generic paladin oath to enforce the paladin's class constraints?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Jessex, it's not as obvious as that. Without being there, I would guess the "talk" at the beginning is probably around a 2 on the offense scale. As described, the necromancer took it in stride.
The facts as presented are the only things we have to go on. The one in the wrong is the necro player. It is and always has been that simple.
You agree to something you abide by that agreement. If you can't there are consequences and you don't get to whine when you don't like what they are.
Not a completely fair statement. If you tell someone that you will punish them if they steal a pack of gum and they steal a pack of gum anyway and you then inform them that the punishment will be death, I think they have a right to whine about the severity of the punishment.
Clearly, in the case being discussed, the Necromancer did not expect the punishment for his transgression to be as severe as it was. If there was no clear punishment agreed upon for violating the original agreement you can't simply say, "Then any punishment I decide is fair and valid."
Now you can argue all you want that the Necro deserved that punishment, but clearly not everyone agrees with that.
|
|
Talonhawke, the answer is yes, PCs "get to" let one another die on missions.
I ran a table once where the gnome cleric used up all her channel positive energy uses out of combat before the first encounter, just to be silly. That led to two PC deaths when combat got hairy. She was allowed to do that.
That's completely different. At that moment it was outside of the gnome's power to be able to handle with the threat. In the case the OP described the inquisitor stood there and watched his fellow bleed out.
At my table the inquisitor would have been booted out of the society and thus have been reported dead for failure to uphold one of the three tenants of the Society (cooperate).
|
|
So, can a good/neutral character allow an enemy to die through inaction?My Pharasmite Paladin reached 7th level before any party she was in actually killed another humanoid without her intervening to heal/channel/lay on hands to ensure that all opponents lived.
Most times, I also roleplayed delivering the sermon:
"Through the auspices of Pharasma, you have seen the Boneyard, and been pulled back. You will meet Her in the Boneyard again. Spend this extra span of days aiding others; talk to your mother, assist midwives in delivering healthy children, and tend to those whose time has come, so that their deeds and lives are remembered and cherished by those they touched."
PFS cannot enforce the setting fiction on its player base; it's at its best when the setting fiction is embraced by the players. I'm firmly in the Inquisitor Did No Wrong camp...though I'd've let the Neccy come one point shy of true death, stabilized him, and made sure he woke up in the VO's office.
You have a Paladin of Pharasma?
You have a Paladin of Pharasma?
It used to be a thing.
|
|
If my party's paladin ask that Infernal healing not be used on him and I agree but come end of a battle he is down and that's the only chance of saving him , by Moradin I'm saving him.
And if you do you can expect at least some characters AND players to be very pissed.
If that happened to my paladin I'd certainly try to convince you and the GM to disallow it as a violation of the PVP/don't be a jerk rule.
At the character level I made my position VERY clear at the beginning of the session.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At my table the inquisitor would have been booted out of the society and thus have been reported dead for failure to uphold one of the three tenants of the Society (cooperate).
And you would have been wrong and outside of your ability to do so.
Nowhere is it written that the Inquisitor had to render assistance to the Necromancer. You cannot make up rules infractions to punish someone because you don't like a decision. It is pretty disheartening the number of posters who claim they would do just that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If my party's paladin ask that Infernal healing not be used on him and I agree but come end of a battle he is down and that's the only chance of saving him , by Moradin I'm saving him.And if you do you can expect at least some characters AND players to be very pissed.
If that happened to my paladin I'd certainly try to convince you and the GM to disallow it as a violation of the PVP/don't be a jerk rule.
At the character level I made my position VERY clear at the beginning of the session.
I've been at a table where the Paladin was begging me to use my wand of Infernal Healing. (Which I was happy to do.) That's become my definition of how you know a mission has gone horribly wrong.
|
|
Not a completely fair statement. If you tell someone that you will punish them if they steal a pack of gum and they steal a pack of gum anyway and you then inform them that the punishment will be death, I think they have a right to whine about the severity of the punishment.
Clearly, in the case being discussed, the Necromancer did not expect the punishment for his transgression to be as severe as it was. If there was no clear punishment agreed upon for violating the original agreement you can't simply say, "Then any punishment I decide is fair and valid."
Now you can argue all you want that the Necro deserved that punishment, but clearly not everyone agrees with that.
Except the Inquisitor did not kill the Necromancer, so your comparison is a bit disingenuous.
The punishment was not death, the punishment was no further aid. The end result was death, but the Inquisitor didn't cause it or impose it, he simply did not prevent it. Nor was he obligated to do so.
And what did the Necromancer expect then? A reprimand? Basically to get his way in that situation without any actual consequence? We don't know. What we do know is that the Inquisitor was going to depart the group at that point and the other characters begged him to continue, one could or should expect that at that point there was a significant change in the dynamic.