|
Phantoms grant bonus feats while stored in your consciousness, you can cast touch spells through your phantom, and they can go incorporeal and scout around are the bonus I can think of off the top of my head. They are similar classes on paper but play differently in practice.
So, looking into spirtualist...As far as I can tell, it's basically summoner, but worse?
I haven't done too much looking, but that more or less seems to be the impression.
If that's the case, then why would anyone take it over summoner again?
And they can punch ghosts.
I think it's on par with the Unchained Summoner, with some different but equally worthwhile mechanics, but that's probably a topic for another thread.
So, on par with summoner but worse, instead of just summoner but worse.
|
I think it's on par with the Unchained Summoner, with some different but equally worthwhile mechanics, but that's probably a topic for another thread.So, on par with summoner but worse, instead of just summoner but worse.
That's not the interpretation of that sentence I would have walked away with, but whatever floats your boat.
That's not the interpretation of that sentence I would have walked away with, but whatever floats your boat.I think it's on par with the Unchained Summoner, with some different but equally worthwhile mechanics, but that's probably a topic for another thread.So, on par with summoner but worse, instead of just summoner but worse.
Isn't unchained summoner basically just a summoner nerf?
And if it's on par with the nerfed summoner, it's still worse then summoner, I'd think.
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Just because you have explained it multiple times, doesn't mean it is a satisfactory explanation. The truth is, it is declared evil because the authors say so. That is a supremely unsatisfactory answer but, hey that's life. Fortunately house rule can override that, as is the case in PFS. The PFS rule is, basically, "It doesn't matter, shut up and play nice." and that's a rule I can live with.I was responding specifically to when you said that nothing that I wrote was actually evil. I described animating the dead via create undead and you said it wasn't evil. Which it is. For reasons I've explained over multiple posts now.
The problem with your argument is that there are necromancy spells that fit your criteria of not evil but are considered just as evil. It's because of the concentrated evil part.
Yeah... The reason why I hate explanation of evil is that the person word for word wrote the common view of spiritualists in Golarion and that class isn't inherently evil. It's why I hate the role-playing excuse because it never is consistent with how the fluff is written. You just want to be antagonistic for antagonistics sake.
|
|
As for the example, no I don't think you should take hits to your alignment just because you lock a criminal up and they end up escaping and doing [insert Evil Act here].
I actually don't dispute this, but we keep moving away from the main thrust of my point that a Good spell can be used to perform an Evil act. I used "Cure Critical Wounds" on Murderer McBadguy for the explicit purpose of him to get back on his feet and escape to kill again. I contend that this is an explicitly Evil act. Transitively, an Evil spell can be used for a Good act. Therefore creating undead is not a full stop Evil act; the morality of the act must be weighed against outcome.
The basic Summoner isn't an option in PFS, so that's a moot argument.
*adds to list of reasons not to play pfs*
And before you ask why I'm here then, because I saw it in the sidebar, and I'm magnetically attracted to undead arguments.
Both arguments about undead and arguments that should be dead but keep getting raised.
Dispite all logic telling me I really should just not click on it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The basic Summoner isn't an option in PFS, so that's a moot argument.*adds to list of reasons not to play pfs*
And before you ask why I'm here then, because I saw it in the sidebar, and I'm magnetically attracted to undead arguments.
Both arguments about undead and arguments that should be dead but keep getting raised.
Dispite all logic telling me I really should just not click on it.
*Shrug* PFS is good for what it is: an honest attempt to herd a bunch of opinionated cats to a place where they can all play together with a common rule-set and ethos. It's not perfect, but it does a good job and has a lot of genuinely decent folks putting in long hours to make it happen. PFS is not a replacement for a home game; they are two different beasts. PFS has helped me become a more skilled player and GM and I am happy to play it even if I don't agree with all of the decision made for it.
*Shrug* PFS is good for what it is: an honest attempt to herd a bunch of opinionated cats to a place where they can all play together with a common rule-set and ethos. It's not perfect, but it does a good job and has a lot of genuinely decent folks putting in long hours to make it happen. PFS is not a replacement for a home game; they are two different beasts. PFS has helped me become a more skilled player and GM and I am happy to play it even if I don't agree with all of the decision made for it.The basic Summoner isn't an option in PFS, so that's a moot argument.*adds to list of reasons not to play pfs*
And before you ask why I'm here then, because I saw it in the sidebar, and I'm magnetically attracted to undead arguments.
Both arguments about undead and arguments that should be dead but keep getting raised.
Dispite all logic telling me I really should just not click on it.
I suppose that's why I'd didn't appeal to me-
I never really liked cats.
... Anyway, a tad more serious, I derailed this thread way too much and shall retreat beck to the realm where summoners aren't purely restricted to outsiders the game deems "lore appropriate" and can actually allow you to fufill multiple diffrent flavors using it's mechanics.
|
|
As a Necromancer. I find it's often far easier to raise a family when they're relatively close to one another.
Although the paladin I play with often starts losing his mind, shouting about how it isnt right, why I would do it, and some such nonsense.
Doesn't stop us from completing missions, and I often find that granny ends up being a bad ass due to having more HD... >.>
|
Found some more of James Jacobs on how undead corrupts and traps the soul for ya BlackOuroboros since my argument didn't have enough for ya.
An undead is NOT a soul that's moved on, in other words; it's a soul that's become trapped or corrupted before i moved on.
Creating zombies and skeletons and mindless undead actually does. It doesn't use the WHOLE soul. It cuts off a tiny piece and uses it as the seed to corrupt via necromancy to animate the dead body. This might be a fragment of soul left behind after the soul itself left ages ago, or it might be a bit "snipped" off more recently. That's why, in Pathfinder, even mindless undead are evil.
Your game can of course differ, but in the rules and in Golarion, "soul-snipping" is the the assumption.
|
|
Undead are almost always evil, and that is indeed due to the corruption of the soul.Found a James Jacobs quote on the matter. I know he's said more but this is all I could find at the momment. So in Golarion, yes, creating undead does corrupt the soul, which is an evil act.
The answers I provide are not "official rulings," but I like to think they could be.ALL of these questions should be, frankly, asked in the rules forum. As far as I'm concerned, for my games and for the contents of the products I develop for Golarion, I go with the following answers. I can only hope that the design team agrees! :-PThank you for the response. The reason I asked here was mostly due to people on other sites citing this thread as an official/Paizo ruling on rules questions which do not have errata or a comparable official ruling.
I will do as you ask and place these questions into relevant rules question threads for further discussion.
James Jacobs has been pretty open that his board posts have not been official canon. I've seen a forumite back him into a corner when he severely contradicted himself on alignment, for example. Have something from published material?
|
|
No, he has said he is not a rules guy. He is the official guy for cannon info on the Golarion setting. That's what a Creative Director is.
You'll notice that your quote is about rules, not setting questions.
Yes he is the Creative Director, but producing cannon is not something that happens in under 250 works on a forum post. James keeps that disclaimed because there is not editorial check or review on this venue, just his gut reaction. He does maintain that he would LIKE it to work that way, but unless it's published it holds very little weight.
|
|
As for the example, no I don't think you should take hits to your alignment just because you lock a criminal up and they end up escaping and doing [insert Evil Act here].I actually don't dispute this, but we keep moving away from the main thrust of my point that a Good spell can be used to perform an Evil act. I used "Cure Critical Wounds" on Murderer McBadguy for the explicit purpose of him to get back on his feet and escape to kill again. I contend that this is an explicitly Evil act. Transitively, an Evil spell can be used for a Good act. Therefore creating undead is not a full stop Evil act; the morality of the act must be weighed against outcome.
Cure spells do not have the [Good] type, whether you use them to heal your buddies or save someone from dying is even a Good act at all is up to your GM (I think the latter would be, the former would be a Nice act).
Though you do raise an interesting scenario, are you, alignment wise, responsible for others. In your case if you heal someone so they can murder someone that's a lot of Evil intent but is it an Evil act by itself? What if you heal the person so they can murder someone and they choose not to? It's an Evil thought, but since no one was murdered is it an Evil act?
This is something I think should remain between the players and the GM since there's so many, variables? I guess? Don't really know the best way to explain it.
|
|
And they can punch ghosts.Phantoms grant bonus feats while stored in your consciousness, you can cast touch spells through your phantom, and they can go incorporeal and scout around are the bonus I can think of off the top of my head. They are similar classes on paper but play differently in practice.
So, looking into spirtualist...As far as I can tell, it's basically summoner, but worse?
I haven't done too much looking, but that more or less seems to be the impression.
If that's the case, then why would anyone take it over summoner again?
Having GMed one through a low level dungeon crawl, I'll just say that the ability to go scouting by looking through the walls before going in can be very nearly game breaking.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Having GMed one through a low level dungeon crawl, I'll just say that the ability to go scouting by looking through the walls before going in can be very nearly game breaking.And they can punch ghosts.Phantoms grant bonus feats while stored in your consciousness, you can cast touch spells through your phantom, and they can go incorporeal and scout around are the bonus I can think of off the top of my head. They are similar classes on paper but play differently in practice.
So, looking into spirtualist...As far as I can tell, it's basically summoner, but worse?
I haven't done too much looking, but that more or less seems to be the impression.
If that's the case, then why would anyone take it over summoner again?
Definitely give those monsters perception checks to notice the curious ghost.
|
|
Definitely give those monsters perception checks to notice the curious ghost.Having GMed one through a low level dungeon crawl, I'll just say that the ability to go scouting by looking through the walls before going in can be very nearly game breaking.And they can punch ghosts.Phantoms grant bonus feats while stored in your consciousness, you can cast touch spells through your phantom, and they can go incorporeal and scout around are the bonus I can think of off the top of my head. They are similar classes on paper but play differently in practice.
So, looking into spirtualist...As far as I can tell, it's basically summoner, but worse?
I haven't done too much looking, but that more or less seems to be the impression.
If that's the case, then why would anyone take it over summoner again?
Also, don't forget that if an incorporeal Phantom is out of line of effect for more rounds that your Spiritualist level or more than 50 feet from you then you lose it for the rest of the day.
I think the idea is to poke it's head through the wall to see what's in the room next door. :-)
|
Also, don't forget that if an incorporeal Phantom is out of line of effect for more rounds that your Spiritualist level or more than 50 feet from you then you lose it for the rest of the day.
Which matters (barely) at first level and is negligible afterward.
It takes (at most) 10 feet of movement to get through a door and back.
|
|
Also, don't forget that if an incorporeal Phantom is out of line of effect for more rounds that your Spiritualist level or more than 50 feet from you then you lose it for the rest of the day.Which matters (barely) at first level and is negligible afterward.
It takes (at most) 10 feet of movement to get through a door and back.
Well, I remember hearing stories durring the beta that Spiritualists were using Phantoms to map the entire dungeons. I'm not sure if thats true, but it would explain the draconian range penalty.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
50ft is definitely a limit; you can scout 1-2 rooms ahead, but not the entire dungeon.
An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid objects, but must remain adjacent to the object's exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than its own. [b]It can sense the presence of creatures or objects within a square adjacent to its current location,[b] but enemies have total concealment (50% miss chance) from an incorporeal creature that is inside an object. In order to see beyond the object it is in and attack normally, the incorporeal creature must emerge.
A phantom can scout a room without being seen, but then what it really sees is limited.
|
|
In the dungeon crawl where I GMed one, he was just used to look through the doors before opening them, so they knew if they should buff for a fight or not. It bought them a round or two to buff and position for every single fight, and they were able to avoid wasting buffs on doors that didn't have an enemy behind them.
Also, it just stuck its head into the walls everywhere, so they found secret doors more easily.
Since it was a bigger dungeon crawl (module, not scenario), this conserved a lot of time and resources for the party. Not quite game breaking, but the phantom was clearly the party MVP.
|
|
How are so many spiritualists using their phantoms to check the next room without having it's occupants see it? Incorporeal creatures are not invisible by default. Also, in order to scout the room effectively they must emerge from the wall; if an incorporeal creature remain in an object they can only sense creatures in a square adjacent to them. There is no provision for "just sticking your head through"; it's spelled out clearly that in order to observe a space they must emerge from the object which would prompt a perception check to notice them. Incorporeal creatures are powerful enough within the bounds of the rules; of course they are game-breakers when you allow them to do things outside of the bounds of the rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS is one of the few places where Necromancers don't cause issues, simply because you're on orders from higher ups.
It is acceptable, because you've been order to do it.
Full Stop.
If your character can't handle that, then they're the problem here. If you can handle that, then you're the problem.
Uh, no.
Full Stop.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
they should just ban necromancers in generalBan paladins, they have far more class features restricting who they can play with.
Necromancers come with none of that unfortunate baggage
Except I want to play a game where my characters get to be heroes and get to walk around with other heroes. I'd much rather adventure with a Paladin and all their restrictions than with a necromancer that just skeeves me the heck out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Within the bounds of the literal challenge, the obvious solution is to make a holy necromancer who doesn't create undead, but rather destroys them. But I'm not sure that's what was intended.That's exactly what I meant. Not all necromancy has to do with creating and controlling undead. A paladin with levels in wizard with the necromancy specialization would be a paladin/necromancer. They could use necromancy for stuff like Cause Fear and False Life, without dealing with undead at all. Nothing un-paladinish about those spells.
But people go into necromancy for the cool undead minion. Not the debuffing.I beg to differ. My only PC with Spell Focus: Necromancy doesn't do anything with undead. He's a negative channeling "bad touch" cleric, so he can spontaneously cast the inflict spells, which are Necromancy. He also uses Blindness/Deafness, Bestow Curse, and other necromancy debuffs.
Actually, undead are something of a weakness for him, because he doesn't really have anything that he can use against them. That's when he pulls out the wands of Bless and Cure Light Wounds, and hopes the rest of the party is better against undead than he is.
Not all Necromancy spells have to do with raising dead.
But I'd argue that common parlance, at the very least, indicates that all Necromancers raise dead.
In other words, Necromancy Specialist =/= Necromancer
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not "more complicated".
If you're sitting down to a PFS table as a player, you have to acknowledge that your PC is choosing to be a "Pathfinder first", and a "everything else second".
Pathfinders cooperate. They know that a party may be composed of 1) a Pacificst, 2) a Warlord of Gorum, 3) a Fire Elementalist, 4) a Water Elementalist, 5) a Paladin, and 6) a Necromancer.
And they're going to make it work.
Have fun with your roleplay, but *nobody's* RP gets to trump anyone else's.
I actually agree with this. And as adults, we can create some really fun roleplay from the potential character choice conflicts.
Its the players who are unwilling to find a compromise that are the ones that cause the problems, not the characters.
However, what I've seen, is that necromancy is a very easy way for the type of player who likes to show off just how disgusting and evil they can be to do so. This character type attracts players who like to be "evil" and thus jerks to everyone else at the table.
"Oh, you're a paladin? I'm gonna screw with you... hehehe"
I've seen it and been the target of it. It isn't fun when I'm trying to find a compromise.
And no matter which character you are playing (goody-two-shoes or near-evil) either bring an alternate character or bring an alternate thing you can do. If playing a necromancer, part of the compromise you make as characters with the Paladin, is that you will only raise dead if absolutely necessary to save the party. Its ok, because you have other spells you can cast that day that are pretty effective too. If you are playing the Paladin, you have to be ok with that. It might be distasteful, but you joined an organization that employs all sorts, and you agreed to its edicts. And if, as a player, you can't reconcile that with your character, then make sure you always bring an alternate character.
The problem, most often, is not with the characters, but the players.
I've just seen more character-griefing done by the "evil" side than the "good" side.
|
|
Except I want to play a game where my characters get to be heroes and get to walk around with other heroes. I'd much rather adventure with a Paladin and all their restrictions than with a necromancer that just skeeves me the heck out.they should just ban necromancers in generalBan paladins, they have far more class features restricting who they can play with.
Necromancers come with none of that unfortunate baggage
Don't worry, the feeling is mutual.
|
|
Really, why can't the Necromancers actually take us Pallies into consideration instead??Because they lose half their functionality when they do, while the Paladin gets to enjoy all of their class features.
Maybe not for long. Depending on just how accommodating a Paladin is to the evil undead being part of their adventure experience and ally, every adventure with a necromancer might require an atonement.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe not for long. Depending on just how accommodating a Paladin is to the evil undead being part of their adventure experience and ally, every adventure with a necromancer might require an atonement.Really, why can't the Necromancers actually take us Pallies into consideration instead??Because they lose half their functionality when they do, while the Paladin gets to enjoy all of their class features.
As stated before, that is very likely not the case. Any GM that punishes your Paladin like that because someone else at the table is playing a character type that does not care about Paladin code is not fit to be GM in PFS. Fact is that as far as organized play goes, that is something counter-productive. If the Paladin starts doing things to enable the necromancer, or starts raise the dead themselves then sure make them fall. However if the Paladin is just grimacing and bearing the indignity out of honoring their duties to the Society, there is no reason to punish them for cooperating per the society tenants.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Except I want to play a game where my characters get to be heroes and get to walk around with other heroes. I'd much rather adventure with a Paladin and all their restrictions than with a necromancer that just skeeves me the heck out.they should just ban necromancers in generalBan paladins, they have far more class features restricting who they can play with.
Necromancers come with none of that unfortunate baggage
Its Pathfinder Society. You aren't playing the heroes given how dubious everything is written into the setting.
|
|
My single potential encounter that could have been a problem was at my first Megacon when a necro player tried to convince me as I was sitting down that my undead hating TN Cleric of Pharasma wouldn't be needing an atonement for neg channeling and healing his(eventual) horde of undead that he was planning to unleash (this was prebanning of Blood money)
I simply got up and socially obliterated The Disappearence with Beezy running it instead.
Most necros I've seen as a Gm are more. 'Cheap sausage for the front line, go save that guy from attacks'
I do suggest that they talk to the other players ahead of time.
Results will vary.
Overall had less issues with necros than say..occult characters. Who always 'forget' mental condition affecting casting
|
It's not "more complicated".
If you're sitting down to a PFS table as a player, you have to acknowledge that your PC is choosing to be a "Pathfinder first", and a "everything else second".
Pathfinders cooperate. They know that a party may be composed of 1) a Pacificst, 2) a Warlord of Gorum, 3) a Fire Elementalist, 4) a Water Elementalist, 5) a Paladin, and 6) a Necromancer.
And they're going to make it work.
Have fun with your roleplay, but *nobody's* RP gets to trump anyone else's.
I actually agree with this. And as adults, we can create some really fun roleplay from the potential character choice conflicts.
Its the players who are unwilling to find a compromise that are the ones that cause the problems, not the characters.
However, what I've seen, is that necromancy is a very easy way for the type of player who likes to show off just how disgusting and evil they can be to do so. This character type attracts players who like to be "evil" and thus jerks to everyone else at the table.
"Oh, you're a paladin? I'm gonna screw with you... hehehe"
I've seen it and been the target of it. It isn't fun when I'm trying to find a compromise.
And no matter which character you are playing (goody-two-shoes or near-evil) either bring an alternate character or bring an alternate thing you can do. If playing a necromancer, part of the compromise you make as characters with the Paladin, is that you will only raise dead if absolutely necessary to save the party. Its ok, because you have other spells you can cast that day that are pretty effective too. If you are playing the Paladin, you have to be ok with that. It might be distasteful, but you joined an organization that employs all sorts, and you agreed to its edicts. And if, as a player, you can't reconcile that with your character, then make sure you always bring an alternate character.
The problem, most often, is not with the characters, but the players.
I've just seen more character-griefing done by the "evil" side than the "good" side.
And I actually have seen it more often from the "good"/"lawful" side.
IMHO you said it best with "The problem, most often, is not with the characters, but the players."
The classic "pain in the buttocks" PC to have dropped into your group is a Paladin played by a stranger. Is this guy going to be "one of those players" who insists on reviewing your every PC action thru a lens of "can I interfere with what the other player wants to do"? This has been a phenomena I've encountered many times in 40+ years of RPG games...
Can you get great fun games with Paladins? Sure!
Can a real jerk show up playing an "evil" type PC? Yeah - easily.
But if someone is going to set out to be a pain to is fellow players? In my experience, they are much more likely to do that by running a Paladin...
"The problem, most often, is not with the characters, but the players."
|
|
Its Pathfinder Society. You aren't playing the heroes given how dubious everything is written into the setting.
While my Silver Crusaders would heavily contest this point, the more important point is that one signs on to three BASIC tenets when they sit down to a PFS table.
REPORT.
COOPERATE.
So no edge-masters in either direction at tables I either play at or GM, please and thank you.
|
|
"Oh, you're a paladin? I'm gonna screw with you... hehehe"
I've seen it and been the target of it. It isn't fun when I'm trying to find a compromise.
And no matter which character you are playing (goody-two-shoes or near-evil) either bring an alternate character or bring an alternate thing you can do. If playing a necromancer, part of the compromise you make as characters with the Paladin, is that you will only raise dead if absolutely necessary to save the party. Its ok, because you have other spells you can cast that day that are pretty effective too. If you are playing the Paladin, you have to be ok with that. It might be distasteful, but you joined an organization that employs all sorts, and you agreed to its edicts. And if, as a player, you can't reconcile that with your character, then make sure you always bring an alternate character.
The problem, most often, is not with the characters, but the players.
I've just seen more character-griefing done...
Sounds you are one of the problem players (I doubt you are, but it "sounds like that" from these posts).
If playing a necromancer, but being told I can only use my class focus "when absolutely needed" is unfair. That would be like saying the paladin can only use detect evil when "absolutely needed." And detect evil is helpful, but never absolutely needed.
I agree that if the player is just using undead to piss off other players, that is it's own issue. But telling a player that their PFS legal class focus is unwelcome at the table is both mean and very much not something a Paladin's Player should be doing at a PFS table.
Paladins, being lawful good, have much more cause to get along and work as a team than any other class (in requirements). There is no lawful good reason for the Paladin to be unwelcoming to his fellows, to impair their ability to shine, or otherwise be the one that is attempting to making group cohesion fail.
Paladins should always be that awesome beacon of good and order, which shows other characters (and players) why their deity is something they should worship. Being an elitist jerk to players that make certain types of characters is not something that will make people want to follow your paladin's deity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not being an elitist jerk to have your Paladin, or your Cleric/Inquisitor/Warpriest/devout follower of Sarenrae/Pharasma have a problem with Undead being created, and for the player to rankle at being told they have to put up with Undead for metagame reasons despite their characters devoting most of their existence to destroying Undead.
Creating Undead goes against numerous morals, religions, and cultures in-game. Smite and Detect Evil? Not so much.
This is one thing that has always galled me about PFS, the metagame "everyone absolutely has to get along no matter what" by making the Society the most important thing, that apparently outweighs your character's philosophy, morales, Code, and even their Deity? A character being able to create Undead is more important than your character's deity that they worship? The forced metagame is the only reason this jarring scenario is allowed to take place, outside of PFS if a necromancer started to create Undead in front of a Paladin or Cleric of Pharasma a Smite would be incoming, "ally" or not.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
One faction leader is potentially a known slaver. Another faction leader manipulated his little brother. One faction recruited undead to aid them with one of them being a vile and repugnant jerk. The Grand Lodge apparently used Bonekeep part 4 to filter out its recruits with the expected results of sending out level 1 characters into Bonekeep. So yeah the Silver Crusade and Sovereign Court are potentially the only good ones.
Its Pathfinder Society. You aren't playing the heroes given how dubious everything is written into the setting.While my Silver Crusaders would heavily contest this point, the more important point is that one signs on to three BASIC tenets when they sit down to a PFS table.
REPORT.
COOPERATE.
So no edge-masters in either direction at tables I either play at or GM, please and thank you.
It's not being an elitist jerk to have your Paladin, or your Cleric/Inquisitor/Warpriest/devout follower of Sarenrae/Pharasma have a problem with Undead being created, and for the player to rankle at being told they have to put up with Undead for metagame reasons despite their characters devoting most of their existence to destroying Undead.
Well yeah but as I said earlier it doesn't make any sense given that its an organization that has as its members people who actively recruit undead into the organization to help them to be that obsessive about it. Why would you even join the organization in the first place?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not being an elitist jerk to have your Paladin, or your Cleric/Inquisitor/Warpriest/devout follower of Sarenrae/Pharasma have a problem with Undead being created, and for the player to rankle at being told they have to put up with Undead for metagame reasons despite their characters devoting most of their existence to destroying Undead.
Creating Undead goes against numerous morals, religions, and cultures in-game. Smite and Detect Evil? Not so much.
Yes, but your desire to role play a goody two shoes that doesn't raise unholy mockeries of life from the great beyond doesn't override the equally valid desire of someone else to play someone that raises unholy mockeries of life from the great beyond.