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.
And if it goes to that point I'll stop. But if you ask why I'm doing it I'll point out its for the sake of the mission. I may have to pay for it down the line but I need your ass standing to wrap this up. No I wouldn't continue to force it but I'm damn well gonna try.
|
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.
We should not equate the PvP rule with the "don't be a jerk" rule. Those two things are not the same. As well, this doesn't fall anywhere inside the "no PvP" rule. The text of that rule is quite clear - using infernal healing on your character against your wishes, explicit or otherwise, isn't the same as "intentionally kill[ing]" your character.
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 would you have also booted the necromancer for failing to cooperate? From the second hand information that we have recieved, he also very clearly did not cooperate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So would you have also booted the necromancer for failing to cooperate? From the second hand information that we have recieved, he also very clearly did not cooperate.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).
Using your legal spells for the benefit of the party is not not cooporating. The pharasmin doesn't have a rule to stand on telling the necromancer what he can do.
Using your legal spells for the benefit of the party is not not cooporating. The pharasmin doesn't have a rule to stand on telling the necromancer what he can do.So would you have also booted the necromancer for failing to cooperate? From the second hand information that we have recieved, he also very clearly did not cooperate.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).
The only info we have that he agreed not to animate dead, then specifically did the most offensive thing possible (to a phasmite clergy) for the purpose of pissing off the inquisitor.
That is not 'for the benefit of the party' and is not cooperating.
The only info we have that he agreed not to animate dead, then specifically did the most offensive thing possible (to a phasmite clergy) for the purpose of pissing off the inquisitor.
That is not 'for the benefit of the party' and is not cooperating.
We don't know that we have a second hand account that felt like that was what was being done.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only info we have that he agreed not to animate dead, then specifically did the most offensive thing possible (to a phasmite clergy) for the purpose of pissing off the inquisitor.
That is not 'for the benefit of the party' and is not cooperating.
I don't see where the necromancer did it just to tick off the pharasmin. They were down a party member. Yes, he broke his word, but the pharasmin had no cause to demand it in the first place.
|
Except the Inquisitor did not kill the Necromancer, so your comparison is a bit disingenuous.
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.
It wasn't disingenuous because I wasn't trying to make a direct comparison. I was just trying to point out there is a difference between expecting to be punished and what the expectation of that punishment is.
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.
Now you are being disingenuous. The Inquisitor knew the likely end result of not helping and chose to allow that to happen anyway. Thus he chose death as the punishment. Semantic quibbles don't change that. He knew what he was doing when he did it. In the U.S., if someone is dying and you can do something about it and choose not to this is called Negligent Homicide.
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.
To be honest, it seems like the Necromancer pretty much expected to get off Scott Free because of the PFS PvP rules and was surprised by the fact that the same gray area he was using to protect himself could now be used against him. Which would make him a pretty big jerk and maybe he did deserve it. But that is all supposition and that was never my point anyway.
My point was that expectation of punishment does not mean all forms of punishment are acceptable if that punishment was never clearly spelled out in the first place.
|
|
And if it goes to that point I'll stop. But if you ask why I'm doing it I'll point out its for the sake of the mission. I may have to pay for it down the line but I need your ass standing to wrap this up. No I wouldn't continue to force it but I'm damn well gonna try.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.
Thank you for that (the internet being what it is I'll explicitly state that is sincere). From my characters point of view, almost no mission is important enough for him to potentially damn his soul for (About the only exception I can think of off hand would be The Waking Rune).
I'd also almost certainly not push the point IF it was necessary for the other characters to survive. Not sure what I'd do if it was necessary for them to get the XP/Loot (which I think much more important than the 1 or 2 prestige).
Compromise. Its a wonderful thing :-)
|
|
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?
Rules text != setting fiction. Remember, by the rules as written, only female clerics can channel; this is clearly not the way the game is played, but I bring it out to highlight the difference between game mechanics and setting fiction.
Setting fiction is what the game mechanics attempt to emulate. Having players invest in setting fiction helps everyone else have more fun, but it has to be voluntary.
The problem is one of logistics - PFS has to be inclusive to a wide variety of play styles. The only way PFS can enforce the setting fiction is by saying "thou shalt NOT do that."
Which is why I have a Paladin of Pharasma who I can't get an Eyes of the Ten table for.
About the time she hit 11th level, Paladins of Pharasma became formally illegal by text in the PFS Org Play guide. As I had over 48 games logged with this character (having switched to Slow progression because I enjoyed playing her), as a Paladin of Pharasma, with the roleplaying hooks that entails...and I wasn't about to throw 40+ sessions of play history and continuity out by changing deity and philosophical ethos.
She very much fits the setting, she has hooks into the setting and Golarion lore...but because of people doing Paladins of Rovagug and Asmodeus, PFS adopted a campaign-specific rule saying that Paladins have to worship and have deity restrictions as Inquisitors and Clerics do. (this is, oddly enough, not something that's in the core class description.)
I was pretty cranky about it when the change came, because I've seen entire tables run on "We're the X-Men" and "We're the Avengers" and "We're the Justice League." because pop culture references are fine...
PFS is meant to allow the maximum number of people have the easiest point of entry into the game, and a reason to come back and play every two weeks. It's meant to be fun, it's also meant to sell PF products, and it's meant to grow the community of the game.
That means that, barring really egregious things (Paladins of Rovagug, et al), they don't try to enforce the setting fiction, because the best way to lose a player is to tell them "Your character is WRONG!"
I'm the splash damage of one of these decisions.
PFS also has a hard time enforcing consequences, unless the player agrees to them, or they fit the narrow range of things already in the OrgPlay Guide. If I were playing the necromancer in the OP, and got healed by Pharasmite magic to save my life, I'd accept a consequence that I could not be healed by Pharasmite worshippers in the future until I paid for an atonement - the effects wouldn't work on me.
But I'm an odd duck and outside the mainstream for PFS play.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We should not equate the PvP rule with the "don't be a jerk" rule. Those two things are not the same. As well, this doesn't fall anywhere inside the "no PvP" rule. The text of that rule is quite clear - using infernal healing on your character against your wishes, explicit or otherwise, isn't the same as "intentionally kill[ing]" your character.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.
While you're technically correct up here we've sort of merged them into a single rule. Its pretty much a semantic quibble whether we've extended the definition of PVP or come up with some reasonably specific examples of what we consider jerk moves.
Seems to work for us too. I've NEVER seen a problem with this at the table that wasn't amicably resolved by the players. Of course, we're Canadians and so renowned for our willingness to compromise :-) :-).
|
Rules text != setting fiction. Remember, by the rules as written, only female clerics can channel;
That's not true.
Paizo has chosen a grammatical rule that says that the proper gender to use when referring to a generic member of a character class is the gender of the iconic. Implying that that relates *in any way* to RAW is disingenuous and undermines your further arguments.
|
|
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.
As an aside modern law protects a Samaritan (even one who could be deemed to have the skills) from liability if they help or choose not to help a person.
|
|
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?Rules text != setting fiction. Remember, by the rules as written, only female clerics can channel; this is clearly not the way the game is played, but I bring it out to highlight the difference between game mechanics and setting fiction.
Setting fiction is what the game mechanics attempt to emulate. Having players invest in setting fiction helps everyone else have more fun, but it has to be voluntary.
The problem is one of logistics - PFS has to be inclusive to a wide variety of play styles. The only way PFS can enforce the setting fiction is by saying "thou shalt NOT do that."
How do we adjudicate then the RAW of the inquisitor class:
Ex-Inquisitors
An inquisitor who slips into corruption or changes to a prohibited alignment loses all spells and the judgment ability. She cannot thereafter gain levels as an inquisitor until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
What does "slip into corruption" mean?
|
|
Using your legal spells for the benefit of the party is not not cooporating. The pharasmin doesn't have a rule to stand on telling the necromancer what he can do.So would you have also booted the necromancer for failing to cooperate? From the second hand information that we have recieved, he also very clearly did not cooperate.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).
The only info we have that he agreed not to animate dead, then specifically did the most offensive thing possible (to a phasmite clergy) for the purpose of pissing off the inquisitor.
That is not 'for the benefit of the party' and is not cooperating.
Yeah, but he already took care of that by dying himself ;). But if he hadn't died that would have been them working it out and cooperating. If they broke their word to each other but still cooperated by successfully completing their goal, then all would have been fine and we'd be avoiding this whole conversation. But the inquisitor simply out of spite refused to follow the rules of the campaign and watch his fellow bleed out.
Just like the GM has the authority to knock people for alignment infractions, he has the same authority to knock people for not following the tenants of the organization in which we are all a part of by playing under the same organized play banner.
We're all part of the same campaign and abide by the same rules so that all of this works. If one person (like the mentioned inquisitor) refuses to cooperate (like not taking a simple action to ensure a party member and a fellow pathfinder doesn't die when there is nothing keeping him from doing so other than himself) then what's to stop people from disregarding any rule sent down by society (or campaign leadership)?
Just like if a neutral character does an evil act and does not want to atone they are reported dead, so should a character that knowingly disobeys the rules of the Society be reported dead.
|
|
What's important for Judges to remember, is that under no circumstances, should you force a player to do anything, even saving another player. The player's actions, and the consequences thereof, are their own. The Inquisitor did not kill the Necromancer, he simply refused to save him. PVP does not come into play in this scenario.
In the OP example, the GM acted correctly in resisting the wrong advice of the other GM to forcibly take control of a player's character.
What about "Do Not Bully Other Players"?
He may not be doing an action, but it feels like a very clear case of bullying as I can get.
I do think the GM made the wrong play here, because this feels like an endorsement of bullying. Both players now have the very clear way to bully other characters in such a way that some GMs will allow it.
As GM, I wouldn't tell the inquisitor I was forcing him to stabilize, but I would hand wave stabilization as resources were available. I would do the same thing if the necromancer had a healing potion on him, but the other players refused to use it for some reason. The potion was used, I don't need to assign the action to a particular player.
|
If I was the inquisitor - I too would be upset - but more than likely I would have let the dwarf try until he succeeded and if he did not, on the vary last round then stabilized - let the necro sweat a bit - one can say "Let Pharasma decide" as the dwarf tries - but in the end do the healing.
So my question was, the dwarf tried to make heal checks for a number of rounds - I take it he did not have a resource he could have expended for an automatic save.
--
I have had a character that refused to heal another character with resources and I would have let the character die (didn't come up) - mostly for player reasons not character ones. We were all 5th level and he was bragging how he never wasted money on healing for his character or consumables - he just expected the clerics and druid to provide him healing since he was a melee type. He didn't have his own wand, no potions, no magic weapon or a way to make it magical - no missile weapon unless he could borrow one. etc.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's important for Judges to remember, is that under no circumstances, should you force a player to do anything, even saving another player. The player's actions, and the consequences thereof, are their own. The Inquisitor did not kill the Necromancer, he simply refused to save him. PVP does not come into play in this scenario.
In the OP example, the GM acted correctly in resisting the wrong advice of the other GM to forcibly take control of a player's character.
What about "Do Not Bully Other Players"?
He may not be doing an action, but it feels like a very clear case of bullying as I can get.
I do think the GM made the wrong play here, because this feels like an endorsement of bullying. Both players now have the very clear way to bully other characters in such a way that some GMs will allow it.
As GM, I wouldn't tell the inquisitor I was forcing him to stabilize, but I would hand wave stabilization as resources were available. I would do the same thing if the necromancer had a healing potion on him, but the other players refused to use it for some reason. The potion was used, I don't need to assign the action to a particular player.
I actually saw the Necro as a bully, as he was very clearly asked not to do something, and did so, not to contribute but to annoy and grief the inqusitor. Because he could. And the inquisitor could do nothing to stop him.
Well, he stopped him by doing nothing.
Bully solved.
S.
|
|
As an aside modern law protects a Samaritan (even one who could be deemed to have the skills) from liability if they help or choose not to help a person.
The Good Samaritan Laws are designed to protect you from liability if you attempt to render aide to someone. They do nothing for you if you choose not to render aide and choosing not to when you can reasonably do so can be considered Depraved-Indifference Murder depending on the circumstances.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's important for Judges to remember, is that under no circumstances, should you force a player to do anything, even saving another player. The player's actions, and the consequences thereof, are their own. The Inquisitor did not kill the Necromancer, he simply refused to save him. PVP does not come into play in this scenario.
In the OP example, the GM acted correctly in resisting the wrong advice of the other GM to forcibly take control of a player's character.
What about "Do Not Bully Other Players"?
He may not be doing an action, but it feels like a very clear case of bullying as I can get.
I do think the GM made the wrong play here, because this feels like an endorsement of bullying. Both players now have the very clear way to bully other characters in such a way that some GMs will allow it.
As GM, I wouldn't tell the inquisitor I was forcing him to stabilize, but I would hand wave stabilization as resources were available. I would do the same thing if the necromancer had a healing potion on him, but the other players refused to use it for some reason. The potion was used, I don't need to assign the action to a particular player.
I actually saw the Necro as a bully, as he was very clearly asked not to do something, and did so, not to contribute but to annoy and grief the inqusitor. Because he could. And the inquisitor could do nothing to stop him.
Well, he stopped him by doing nothing.
Bully solved.
S.
I did remove comment noting I could see the necromancer as a bully among a lot of other less relevant comments on theoritical situations passive aggressive bullying"
I can't tell what the necro was planning, intent is hard to read on the internet already and I'm reading through a second hand account.
If I sat at a table, described my gunslinger, then the cleric threw up their hands and said, "No, I'm not dealing with any of this non-fantasy crap today. If you use your guns, you don't get any healing. And if anyone else does anything to help you, same goes for them. My character hate firearms and you can't force me to do something I won't do."
Your stance seems pretty clear that as the gunslinger, my options are either to walk away from the table, spend the entire session using secondary weapons, or more than likely see my character die as he racks up damage through various battles. And my character is the bully because he is using a weapon the other PC doesn't like.
It isn't up to player's to stop bullying, especially with more bullying. That is up to the GM, VL, VC, and so on.
|
|
As an aside modern law protects a Samaritan (even one who could be deemed to have the skills) from liability if they help or choose not to help a person.The Good Samaritan Laws are designed to protect you from liability if you attempt to render aide to someone. They do nothing for you if you choose not to render aide and choosing not to when you can reasonably do so can be considered Depraved-Indifference Murder depending on the circumstances.
Actually Ontario law explicitly calls out protection from liability for acting or failing to act.
Now I think they are their to cover the weird case when a relative of a deceased sues a Dr for not saving someone's life in the middle of a dangerous situation.
I just thought it an interesting aside.
|
|
I actually saw the Necro as a bully, as he was very clearly asked not to do something, and did so, not to contribute but to annoy and grief the inqusitor. Because he could. And the inquisitor could do nothing to stop him.
And how on earth could you know why someone you're hearing about third hand did something?
|
|
For added confusion, what was the Inquisitors domain, if it was True Death, or even the the Pharsmian modification of the Death domain, those both call out the no-no to undead motif that would drive the player to do what he did.
There is so much table context that would be helpful here. Did the Inquisitors player or in character inform the Necro that he would not heal him in a definitive way after the character raised the dead, or only after he started bleeding out? Or in a vague way by just not healing him?
|
|
Rules text != setting fiction. Remember, by the rules as written, only female clerics can channel;That's not true.
Paizo has chosen a grammatical rule that says that the proper gender to use when referring to a generic member of a character class is the gender of the iconic. Implying that that relates *in any way* to RAW is disingenuous and undermines your further arguments.
Since you didn't quote the rest of my sentence, and apparently didn't read the rest, I've done you the favor of providing the rest of the context.
Rules text != setting fiction. Remember, by the rules as written, only female clerics can channel; this is clearly not the way the game is played, but I bring it out to highlight the difference between game mechanics and setting fiction.
Now, please give me the Core Rulebook page supporting your assertion that there's a grammatical rule being followed.
I acknowledge that not linking class abilities to gender is a very common (and sensible) rules interpretation. I did so in the sentence you didn't bother to quote fully.
However, the ball is in your court. Please cite your sources.
For the others reading:
I think "Rules as Interpreted" are more important than "Rules as Written." I think it's a good idea to check Rules as Interpreted on a regular basis, because they rely on a consensus of VOs and GMs and players.
I think "Setting fiction" ("is what we're doing consonant with the way Golarion (or any other setting) works?") is more important than either Rules as Written or Rules as Interpreted. The rules exist to simulate the setting fiction, the setting fiction does not exist as a pretext for the rules.
So: "Does this interpretation contradict setting information" trumps
"Does this interpretation allow more people to have more fun" which, in turn, trumps "The rules say something dumb, but they're the rules and we're stuck with them."
I know people who regard Season 6 as "chocolate stuffed olives" because to them, the Technic League does not conform to how they feel Golarion works. This is a "pedal democracy" statement about the importance of Setting Fiction over Rules As Written and Rules As Interpreted.
I know others who bailed on PFS when the APG came out with Gunslingers, because they have trouble imagining ersatz cowboys dual wielding pistols firing faster than revolvers coexisting in a world where Conan-clones with bulging thews and anger management issues are viable characters.
I think RAW arguments are people trying to be Talmudic scholars about rules written at a nickel a word by freelancers under deadlines, read by developers who aren't playing with them, sent to editorial and thrown out to playtest. Yes, the rules are important, but they don't deserve that degree of nitpickyness. Rule i is "Is this enhancing the fun for players at the table?"
Going back to the text about Ex-Inquisitors: "An Inquisitor who slips into corruption" is mechanical backing for something that's under GM (in a home game) or a GM or Campaign Coordinator (in PFS) interpretation. It says "Spiffy cool abilities come at a price and a code of conduct that is set by the setting fiction." Only rarely (Paladins) do the rules specify what that code of conduct is. It's left open it open to the arbiter of the setting fiction (the GM in most cases, the Campaign Coordinator for PFS) to decide.
PFS is a big enough tent to support many different styles of character and game play, but only because people listen to each other and strive to make the game fun for other players and themselves.
|
|
I actually saw the Necro as a bully, as he was very clearly asked not to do something, and did so, not to contribute but to annoy and grief the inqusitor. Because he could. And the inquisitor could do nothing to stop him.And how on earth could you know why someone you're hearing about third hand did something?
That is the reason I said 'I see' as that was my interpretation from the description.
S.
|
|
What's important for Judges to remember, is that under no circumstances, should you force a player to do anything, even saving another player. The player's actions, and the consequences thereof, are their own. The Inquisitor did not kill the Necromancer, he simply refused to save him. PVP does not come into play in this scenario.
In the OP example, the GM acted correctly in resisting the wrong advice of the other GM to forcibly take control of a player's character.
What about "Do Not Bully Other Players"?
He may not be doing an action, but it feels like a very clear case of bullying as I can get.
I do think the GM made the wrong play here, because this feels like an endorsement of bullying. Both players now have the very clear way to bully other characters in such a way that some GMs will allow it.
As GM, I wouldn't tell the inquisitor I was forcing him to stabilize, but I would hand wave stabilization as resources were available. I would do the same thing if the necromancer had a healing potion on him, but the other players refused to use it for some reason. The potion was used, I don't need to assign the action to a particular player.
I actually saw the Necro as a bully, as he was very clearly asked not to do something, and did so, not to contribute but to annoy and grief the inqusitor. Because he could. And the inquisitor could do nothing to stop him.
Well, he stopped him by doing nothing.
Bully solved.
S.
I did remove comment noting I could see the necromancer as a bully among a lot of other less relevant comments on theoritical situations passive aggressive bullying"
I can't tell what the necro was planning, intent is hard to read on the internet already and I'm reading through a second hand account.
If I sat at a table, described my gunslinger, then the cleric threw up their hands and said, "No, I'm not dealing with any of this non-fantasy crap today. If you use your...
Were you using your gun specificly to grief or irritate the cleric?
Again, my interpretation from the original post, noone actually knows what occured unfortunately.
S.
|
|
I actually saw the Necro as a bully, as he was very clearly asked not to do something, and did so, not to contribute but to annoy and grief the inqusitor. Because he could. And the inquisitor could do nothing to stop him.That is the reason I said 'I see' as that was my interpretation from the description.
S.
as he was very clearly asked not to do something<----- Ok. Just because someone asks you not to do something does NOT mean anyone is a jerk, or a bully, or deserves to be banned for not conceding to that request. It doesn't matter how politely you think you're making the request, people have a right to tell you no and play their characters.
To get around that, you're inventing reasons that you can't possibly know. What you "see" is entirely in your own head and cannot be used to form other conclusions.
|
If I sat at a table, described my gunslinger, then the cleric threw up their hands and said, "No, I'm not dealing with any of this non-fantasy crap today. If you use your guns, you don't get any healing. And if anyone else does anything to help you, same goes for them. My character hate firearms and you can't force me to do something I won't do."
Your stance seems pretty clear that as the gunslinger, my options are either to walk away from the table, spend the entire session using secondary weapons, or more than likely see my character die as he racks up damage through various battles. And my character is the bully because he is using a weapon the other PC doesn't like.
Is it a cleric of Gunssuckia, God of Gun Hatred, who derives his divine power from hating guns and who would have their power stripped if they cooperate with a gun user?
Did you agree to the condition at the start of the session?
All that aside, it's still not the cleric's responsibility to heal you. They're a jerk if they don't, but it's pretty well established that players are responsible for providing your own healing, and I've sat through a number of tables that the only source of healing was potions and UMD. The Necromancer was as much a victim of his own lack of preparedness by not having a CLW potion on hand for someone to stabilize him, since getting knocked into bleeding and not having anyone who can cast healing is not exactly an unknown situation.
|
|
I actually saw the Necro as a bully, as he was very clearly asked not to do something, and did so, not to contribute but to annoy and grief the inqusitor. Because he could. And the inquisitor could do nothing to stop him.That is the reason I said 'I see' as that was my interpretation from the description.
S.
as he was very clearly asked not to do something<----- Ok. Just because someone asks you not to do something does NOT mean anyone is a jerk, or a bully, or deserves to be banned for not conceding to that request. It doesn't matter how politely you think you're making the request, people have a right to tell you no and play their characters.
To get around that, you're inventing reasons that you can't possibly know. What you "see" is entirely in your own head and cannot be used to form other conclusions.
Ah ... and he had the right to not stabilize said Necro despite how nicely he is asked.
S.
|
|
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.
First, the players involved agreed that one wouldn't take an action. One didn't simply tell the other anything. The necro player was free to refuse or negotiate what the consequences would be. He did not.
Second we're talking about the actions of two people. Do not conflate that with two pieces of paper. No one died. The consequences for one player was at worst that he is no longer able to play a character he put some time into. That may upset him but he will get over it and hopefully he will learn to abide by agreements he makes in the future or to make them.
When I said you can argue all you want that the Necro deserved that punishment, I did not mean that literally. I meant that to say that such arguments are irrelevant to my point. That point being, again, that just because someone knew they would be punished if they did something does not mean all forms of punishment are kosher. As to this point, it is irrelevant if you think the punishment was justified. What this means more succinctly is that PFS is a team game. If you are making a decision based on what you want rather than what the party wants then you are not being a team player. Obviously both the Necro and the dwarf (and apparently the GM) did not think the Necro deserved the punishment he got. So the Inquisitor chose his own wants and desires over everyone else at the table. That is selfish behavior and thus qualifies as being a jerk.
Now was the Necro being a jerk also? ABSOLUTELY! But 2 jerks at the table don't cancel each other out, they just double the number of jerks.
|
|
As an aside modern law protects a Samaritan (even one who could be deemed to have the skills) from liability if they help or choose not to help a person.The Good Samaritan Laws are designed to protect you from liability if you attempt to render aide to someone. They do nothing for you if you choose not to render aide and choosing not to when you can reasonably do so can be considered Depraved-Indifference Murder depending on the circumstances.No, you cannot. In the US, except for 3 states, you cannot be forced to render aid.
Good Samaritan laws provide a care giver immunity from civil claims against someone who does give aid. They do not require the aid be given. Failure to act laws require medical professionals to render aid in public and only LA, MN and VT have those.
Then how is it if you let your feeble grandmother die of starvation while she was living with you, you can be charged with a crime?
|
|
Were you using your gun specificly to grief or irritate the cleric?
Again, my interpretation from the original post, noone actually knows what occured unfortunately.
S.
What I'm doing is irrelavant here as because just taking the action is going to be interpreted as griefing by that other player. This is the point where he decides that my character can die in a ditch for all he cares and do a little jig when I finally bleed out.
|
|
Rules text != setting fiction. Remember, by the rules as written, only female clerics can channel;That's not true.
Paizo has chosen a grammatical rule that says that the proper gender to use when referring to a generic member of a character class is the gender of the iconic. Implying that that relates *in any way* to RAW is disingenuous and undermines your further arguments.
Since you didn't quote the rest of my sentence, and apparently didn't read the rest, I've done you the favor of providing the rest of the context.
Rules text != setting fiction. Remember, by the rules as written, only female clerics can channel; this is clearly not the way the game is played, but I bring it out to highlight the difference between game mechanics and setting fiction.Now, please give me the Core Rulebook page supporting your assertion that there's a grammatical rule being followed.
Here's a message board post from the Creative Director. This is purely a grammar/style issue.
EDIT:
|
|
Ah ... and he had the right to not stabilize said Necro despite how nicely he is asked.
That's correct, and I've been saying at much from the beginning.
Accusations of jerkery are unhelpful and inaccurate.
There is nothing jerkish about taking a flavorful clergy member with a deep connection to golarion lore.
There is nothing jerkish about making a shady necromancer in this campaign.
There is nothing jerkish about one character tell the other character not to raise [dr orpheuous] [/dr orpheous]
Having the player try to dictate that action out of game... is a little jerkish. You don't get to control another players action. But we don't know that that happened.
Not stabilizing a fellow pathfinder... thats a pretty harsh trade off between whats left for the group and what the character would do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How was the Necromancer even allowed in the Society? Raising the undead is an explicitly evil act in Pathfinder, and the Society does not allow evil characters, period. Basically to prevent exactly this sort of problem from occurring.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of those "I deplore what you have to say, but I defend to the death your right to say it," situations for me. Yes, the Inquisitor did something very injurious to the necromancer's player, but he was entirely within his rights to do it. I sure as hell wouldn't do it, and I'd probably be pissed off at the Inquisitor for doing so, but I would support him having the right to make that choice.
|
|
Domains are irrelevant. Core Pharasmin beliefs include the hatred of undead and necromancy which creates them. The choice of domains does not affect that.For added confusion, what was the Inquisitors domain, if it was True Death, or even the the Pharsmian modification of the Death domain, those both call out the no-no to undead motif that would drive the player to do what he did.
There is so much table context that would be helpful here. Did the Inquisitors player or in character inform the Necro that he would not heal him in a definitive way after the character raised the dead, or only after he started bleeding out? Or in a vague way by just not healing him?
Yes and No, an inquisitors inquisition/domain is supposed to represent the tenant of faith that the inquisitor is particularly fervent about. If it has been the True Death Inquisition, whose wording is:
You see undead as a perversion of the natural order, a misuse of magic, or an unjust enslavement of a departed spirit's body, and are sworn to destroying such beings.
Then the inquisitor was being particularly tolerant by not actively destroying the zombie the second it popped up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Society Organized Play does not allow Evil characters.
The Pathfinder Society organization does not forbid Evil characters, nor do you have to be Evil to raise undead.
Is this an Official PFS Response? On the list of things that are evil in Golarion, Animate Dead is Pretty F~%*ing Evil. You're binding a soul to a corpse against its will, stripping it away from the cycle and indirectly causing the End of the World. If it's a legal spell in PFS it shouldn't be because anyone who isn't "neutral but follows an evil god/Nethys" is probably going to have issues with it.
Furthermore, the Necromancer lied to the Inquisitor about his intentions. He agreed not to summon any undead and then do it anyways.
|
|
Is this an Official PFS Response?Pathfinder Society Organized Play does not allow Evil characters.
The Pathfinder Society organization does not forbid Evil characters, nor do you have to be Evil to raise undead.
Please indulge me in this case by considering the answer to the following question:
Are necromancy spells and abilities that create undead banned under the Additional Resources?