|
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.
Point, even if it's not just a goody two shoes but one of the main core classes and two of the core deities.
On the one hand I would say compromise and each bring a different character, but that is rather irksome on both sides, not being able to play a scenario you were looking forward to because of another character.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Point, even if it's not just a goody two shoes but one of the main core classes and two of the core deities.
That's your character. That's their character. Nothing else matters.
On the one hand I would say compromise and each bring a different character, but that is rather irksome on both sides, not being able to play a scenario you were looking forward to because of another character.
No. Make it suck for everyone is not a compromise. It's like solving solomons dilema with dingoes.
You both play
You gripe, try to keep it good natured
The DM doesn't make you fall.
That's it.
No one player gets veto power over another player's character. Not in the name of tradition, not in the name of ad populum, nope.
|
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.
Alright, lets real talk about this for a moment. It is a conceit to get past a very real-world issue: you need to get a group of between five and eight people to work together long enough to get through a scenario in four to five hours. Part of that means buckling down and moving through encounters, not extended bickering and feet-stomping over the moral codes of make-believe deities. Now, in PFS they have a somewhat laissez-faire policy in what players can and cannot do, however there are two iron clad rules: first, you cannot restrict the agency of the other players to make legal choices; two, you must work together as a team. Now, if you have an issue with how a player is running their character in a legal way then you have some options: first, relax and remember this is a game and play it; second, you can request that they adjust their behavior to accommodate you which they might or might not do; third, you can always leave and, if you figure out this is going to be a no-go early on, I can even try to get you moved to a different table. What you can't do is dig in your heels and stop the game for everybody else until you're satisfied; as a GM I can and will hand out 0 xp chronicles as needed to get things back on track.
|
|
I'm not saying or advocating that one player can control another player, the opposite kinda.
You play a Cleric of Pharasma and you're supposed to ignore Undead when they come from a player despite destroying Undead being your character's main thing.
Or your Paladin, with few to no restraints since the GM can't make you fall because of metagame constraints, those same Metagame constraints forcing a Paladin and Necromancer to work together in the first place. What's the point of playing a Paladin then? Just the power is hollow.
|
|
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.Alright, lets real talk about this for a moment. It is a conceit to get past a very real-world issue: you need to get a group of between five and eight people to work together long enough to get through a scenario in four to five hours. Part of that means buckling down and moving through encounters, not extended bickering and feet-stomping over the moral codes of make-believe deities. Now, in PFS they have a somewhat laissez-faire policy in what players can and cannot do, however there are two iron clad rules: first, you cannot restrict the agency of the other players to make legal choices; two, you must work together as a team. Now, if you have an issue with how a player is running their character in a legal way then you have some options: first, relax and remember this is a game and play it; second, you can request that they adjust their behavior to accommodate you which they might or might not do; third, you can always leave and, if you figure out this is going to be a no-go early on, I can even try to get you moved to a different table. What you can't do is dig in your heels and stop the game for everybody else until you're satisfied; as a GM I can and will hand out 0 xp chronicles as needed to get things back on track.
And this goes back to something I hate about PFS, your character's don't matter, your roleplaying doesn't matter, it's just builds and getting through missions. What's the point.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And this goes back to something I hate about PFS, your character's don't matter, your roleplaying doesn't matter, it's just builds and getting through missions. What's the point.
To have fun playing 4-5 hour blocks of pregenerated content for a hybrid roleplaying / tabletop strategy game and to do so a smoothly as possible.
|
|
I'm not saying or advocating that one player can control another player, the opposite kinda.
You play a Cleric of Pharasma and you're supposed to ignore Undead when they come from a player despite destroying Undead being your character's main thing.
Or your Paladin, with few to no restraints since the GM can't make you fall because of metagame constraints, those same Metagame constraints forcing a Paladin and Necromancer to work together in the first place. What's the point of playing a Paladin then? Just the power is hollow.
This is PFS, and at the end of the day that means less about your role play then a home game allows. You can dislike what that means, but in the context of running an organized play environment not everyone will be happy. Animating the dead as a necromancer is something that leadership has allowed, which means your paladins and clerics who worship undead hating gods will just have to deal with it. Following the tenats of a good deity to the point of being a jerk is not any better then someone worshiping an evil deity and doing the same thing. It is still being a jerk because you are so hell bent on your role play. In a home game that is fine, in PFS it is not. Everyone gets to play their legal character and if you can not play nicely together then maybe you should not play at all.
|
|
And this goes back to something I hate about PFS, your character's don't matter, your roleplaying doesn't matter, it's just builds and getting through missions. What's the point.To have fun playing 4-5 hour blocks of pregenerated content for a hybrid roleplaying / tabletop strategy game and to do so a smoothly as possible.
If I play a Paladin, or other follower of a Diety, I'd like to roleplay that. Roleplaying is fun.
|
|
This is PFS, and at the end of the day that means less about your role play then a home game allows. You can dislike what that means, but in the context of running an organized play environment not everyone will be happy. Animating the dead as a necromancer is something that leadership has allowed, which means your paladins and clerics who worship undead hating gods will just have to deal with it. Following the tenats of a good deity to the point of being a jerk is not any better then someone worshiping an evil deity and doing the same thing. It is still being a jerk because you are so hell bent on your role play. In a home game that is fine, in PFS it is not. Everyone gets to play their legal character and if you can not play nicely together then maybe you should not play at all.I'm not saying or advocating that one player can control another player, the opposite kinda.
You play a Cleric of Pharasma and you're supposed to ignore Undead when they come from a player despite destroying Undead being your character's main thing.
Or your Paladin, with few to no restraints since the GM can't make you fall because of metagame constraints, those same Metagame constraints forcing a Paladin and Necromancer to work together in the first place. What's the point of playing a Paladin then? Just the power is hollow.
No, I shouldn't.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A big mistake role players make in pfs , or well, in any cooporative game, is trying to decide what the character WOULD do and then doing that. A better idea that goes double in PFS is to find something that your character MIGHT do and pick something off the list that lets them work with the party.
Lecture the necromancer
Show the necromancer how fleeting the power of undeath is by gleefully cleaving through zombies
Stand back and let the torch and pitchfork mob kill the zombie.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone gets to play their legal character and if you can not play nicely together then maybe you should not play at all.
That was blunt and unnecessary.
No, I shouldn't.
That's unfortunate, and I think you took away the wrong message. I would says that if you are unable to play a certain type of character without coming into conflict with other players, then don't play those characters. There is a vast, vast panoply of available characters to build in PFS, make ones that can play well with others.
|
|
Everyone gets to play their legal character and if you can not play nicely together then maybe you should not play at all.That was blunt and unnecessary.
I disagree. There is no room for tip-toeing around the issue of player conflict in an organized play environment. The fact is that if you want to play in PFS, you have to be able to deal with this situations in a way that does not impact everyone else at the table negatively. As a GM or a player, it is never okay to have a ton of time wasted while one player makes the session about them.
Fact is, you have to be able to play nicely with the other people at the table (including the GM). If you can not, then you should not expect to be allowed to be there. If you disrupt game or cause issues for the other 5+ people at the table, then it is completely in the rights of the VOs to ask you to leave.
|
|
A big mistake role players make in pfs , or well, in any cooporative game, is trying to decide what the character WOULD do and then doing that. A better idea that goes double in PFS is to find something that your character MIGHT do and pick something off the list that lets them work with the party.
Lecture the necromancer
Show the necromancer how fleeting the power of undeath is by gleefully cleaving through zombies
Stand back and let the torch and pitchfork mob kill the zombie.
Would I be allowed to do even that? Or even if you do, and they obviously don't listen (cause they wanted to play a Necromancer), what then?
|
|
Everyone gets to play their legal character and if you can not play nicely together then maybe you should not play at all.That was blunt and unnecessary.
No, I shouldn't.That's unfortunate, and I think you took away the wrong message. I would says that if you are unable to play a certain type of character without coming into conflict with other players, then don't play those characters. There is a vast, vast panoply of available characters to build in PFS, make ones that can play well with others.
Pretty much any character I made that wasn't Evil would have a problem with Undead though. And then I see someone else playing a Paladin or follower of Pharasma having absolutely no problem with Undead being created... it's too jarring for me.
|
|
Would I be allowed to do even that? Or even if you do, and they obviously don't listen (cause they wanted to play a Necromancer), what then?A big mistake role players make in pfs , or well, in any cooporative game, is trying to decide what the character WOULD do and then doing that. A better idea that goes double in PFS is to find something that your character MIGHT do and pick something off the list that lets them work with the party.
Lecture the necromancer
Show the necromancer how fleeting the power of undeath is by gleefully cleaving through zombies
Stand back and let the torch and pitchfork mob kill the zombie.
As long as you are not gleefully cleaving through their zombies, then I do not see a problem with those choices.
Your character tries to redeem the necromancer from their dead raising ways, if they do not listen (as is there right in a role play way) then you character realizes they can not be saved and moves on. Make it a fun role playing experience, and not an interpersonal conflict between players.
|
|
Would I be allowed to do even that? Or even if you do, and they obviously don't listen (cause they wanted to play a Necromancer), what then?A big mistake role players make in pfs , or well, in any cooporative game, is trying to decide what the character WOULD do and then doing that. A better idea that goes double in PFS is to find something that your character MIGHT do and pick something off the list that lets them work with the party.
Lecture the necromancer
Show the necromancer how fleeting the power of undeath is by gleefully cleaving through zombies
Stand back and let the torch and pitchfork mob kill the zombie.
As long as you are not gleefully cleaving through their zombies, then I do not see a problem with those choices.
Your character tries to redeem the necromancer from their dead raising ways, if they do not listen (as is there right in a role play way) then you character realizes they can not be saved and moves on. Make it a fun role playing experience, and not an interpersonal conflict between players.
... that's not how Paladins work though.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... that's not how Paladins work though.Would I be allowed to do even that? Or even if you do, and they obviously don't listen (cause they wanted to play a Necromancer), what then?A big mistake role players make in pfs , or well, in any cooporative game, is trying to decide what the character WOULD do and then doing that. A better idea that goes double in PFS is to find something that your character MIGHT do and pick something off the list that lets them work with the party.
Lecture the necromancer
Show the necromancer how fleeting the power of undeath is by gleefully cleaving through zombies
Stand back and let the torch and pitchfork mob kill the zombie.
As long as you are not gleefully cleaving through their zombies, then I do not see a problem with those choices.
Your character tries to redeem the necromancer from their dead raising ways, if they do not listen (as is there right in a role play way) then you character realizes they can not be saved and moves on. Make it a fun role playing experience, and not an interpersonal conflict between players.
Funny thing about Paladins, you will notice a lot of people disagree on how they work. Especially considering that every god has a different Code for their Paladins to follow. In my opinion, that is absolutely how they work, they are still mortals after all and honor bound to their service in the Society.
|
I dont think falling is only reason to get atonement. If i played at table with my pally and felt i turned the other way too many times to complete mission and get along, than off to temple he goes. It is an RPG decision.
Exactly. Why does this sort of thing have to always be a GM being a jerk? Why can't it be a player making the correct choice based roleplay and on how a Paladin is written up.
|
|
Its Pathfinder Society. You aren't playing the heroes given how dubious everything is written into the setting.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
The Society is a Neutral organization. They are not an evil one. They have had some dubious or bordering amoral missions, sure. But largely, despite being "archaeologists", they are more often than not given ample opportunity to be heroic.
|
|
Funny thing about Paladins, you will notice a lot of people disagree on how they work. Especially considering that every god has a different Code for their Paladins to follow. In my opinion, that is absolutely how they work, they are still mortals after all and honor bound to their service in the Society.... that's not how Paladins work though.Would I be allowed to do even that? Or even if you do, and they obviously don't listen (cause they wanted to play a Necromancer), what then?A big mistake role players make in pfs , or well, in any cooporative game, is trying to decide what the character WOULD do and then doing that. A better idea that goes double in PFS is to find something that your character MIGHT do and pick something off the list that lets them work with the party.
Lecture the necromancer
Show the necromancer how fleeting the power of undeath is by gleefully cleaving through zombies
Stand back and let the torch and pitchfork mob kill the zombie.
As long as you are not gleefully cleaving through their zombies, then I do not see a problem with those choices.
Your character tries to redeem the necromancer from their dead raising ways, if they do not listen (as is there right in a role play way) then you character realizes they can not be saved and moves on. Make it a fun role playing experience, and not an interpersonal conflict between players.
Outside of PFS I don't know of a single Paladin that is okay with Undead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your paladin signed up for the Society knowing that sometimes they have to deal with such. They aren't forced to join and they aren't forced to stay but they are required to cooperate.
|
|
I dont think falling is only reason to get atonement. If i played at table with my pally and felt i turned the other way too many times to complete mission and get along, than off to temple he goes. It is an RPG decision.Exactly. Why does this sort of thing have to always be a GM being a jerk? Why can't it be a player making the correct choice based roleplay and on how a Paladin is written up.
That is taken very out of context. It is not a jerk GM that causes a Paladin to fall for say, killing a helpless enemy. I am saying that causing the Paladin to fall just because they did not try to kill the Necromancer at the table is not okay. If you want to say you feel your paladin need to atone because your role play belief that it is the right thing, and then go get an atonement, then more power to you.
|
|
| 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.
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.
I'd argue that the "equally valid desire to raise dead" is not really equally valid. It may be a "meta-game" validity, but realistically, I cannot see the Pathfinder Society actually allowing Necromancers, and were it my home game, they would not.
|
|
Your paladin signed up for the Society knowing that sometimes they have to deal with such. They aren't forced to join and they aren't forced to stay but they are required to cooperate.
No, the character wouldn't. The metagame construct of the game forces the characters to interact when by all means they would have no reason to. Remove the metagame and someone assigning missions to pathfinders would know better than to assign a Necromancer and a Paladin to the same group.
|
Outside of PFS I don't know of a single Paladin that is okay with Undead.Funny thing about Paladins, you will notice a lot of people disagree on how they work. Especially considering that every god has a different Code for their Paladins to follow. In my opinion, that is absolutely how they work, they are still mortals after all and honor bound to their service in the Society.... that's not how Paladins work though.Would I be allowed to do even that? Or even if you do, and they obviously don't listen (cause they wanted to play a Necromancer), what then?A big mistake role players make in pfs , or well, in any cooporative game, is trying to decide what the character WOULD do and then doing that. A better idea that goes double in PFS is to find something that your character MIGHT do and pick something off the list that lets them work with the party.
Lecture the necromancer
Show the necromancer how fleeting the power of undeath is by gleefully cleaving through zombies
Stand back and let the torch and pitchfork mob kill the zombie.
As long as you are not gleefully cleaving through their zombies, then I do not see a problem with those choices.
Your character tries to redeem the necromancer from their dead raising ways, if they do not listen (as is there right in a role play way) then you character realizes they can not be saved and moves on. Make it a fun role playing experience, and not an interpersonal conflict between players.
Ironically I can see some paladins being a bit pragmatic in the face of another foe. Undead might go onto the back burner for a Paladin of Torag. (Smaller problem, smite later) while others might be less receptive (Sheylyn and Sarenrea come to mind)
My single Pali, not a 'pure one' given she's 14th with only 2 levels would most lively act in code with her goddess (Sheylyn) but she's also followed the 'greater need' before (typically thru gritted teeth and pouting). Of course if the necro lost control, she'd stab them to save him, but she tends to be honest in her interactions and sticks to her word
|
|
I'd argue that the "equally valid desire to raise dead" is not really equally valid. It may be a "meta-game" validity, but realistically, I cannot see the Pathfinder Society actually allowing Necromancers, and were it my home game, they would not.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.
It has been stated that there are evil people in the society. They absolutely would allow necromancers (who are not always evil) per canon material published by Paizo. Fact is, the society would rather have a power hungry wizard on their side than working for a rival agency.
|
|
I also prefer to be able to root for the success of the party, and I have less fun when I can't. But on the other hand, the Pathfinder Society is the group that creates every copy of the Chronicles by hand, through the labor of criminals whose tongues have been removed and who are forced to labor involuntarily under a Geas*. Doesn't mean you can't have a character get upset over it, but at least in theory anyone working for the PFS has decided that some level of moral compromise is all right in order to improve things from the inside.
* At least according to one source. I don't know if it's still legit, but I haven't seen any signs of mechanical printing presses.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is taken very out of context. It is not a jerk GM that causes a Paladin to fall for say, killing a helpless enemy. I am saying that causing the Paladin to fall just because they did not try to kill the Necromancer at the table is not okay. If you want to say you feel your paladin need to atone because your role play belief that it is the right thing, and then go get an atonement, then more power to you.I dont think falling is only reason to get atonement. If i played at table with my pally and felt i turned the other way too many times to complete mission and get along, than off to temple he goes. It is an RPG decision.Exactly. Why does this sort of thing have to always be a GM being a jerk? Why can't it be a player making the correct choice based roleplay and on how a Paladin is written up.
That's my point. I never said anything about a GM forcing a paladin to fall for something like this. But it is my opinion that the way the Paladin Code is written, a player most likely should at least consider getting that atonement if they willingly adventure with a necromancer that is unwilling to mitigate their raising undead. And that is where the griefing comes in. Those I've seen play necromancers know that's how Paladins are written, and do whatever they can to cost the Paladin cash or just grief the player because its a Paladin and its fun to make them squirm, or whatever.
Your paladin signed up for the Society knowing that sometimes they have to deal with such. They aren't forced to join and they aren't forced to stay but they are required to cooperate.No, the character wouldn't. The metagame construct of the game forces the characters to interact when by all means they would have no reason to. Remove the metagame and someone assigning missions to pathfinders would know better than to assign a Necromancer and a Paladin to the same group.
Then why would you even sign up to an organization that allows "abominations" to exist? Your Paladin knew before showing up to join that these things happen and yet he made a choice to be there, why?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's my point. I never said anything about a GM forcing a paladin to fall for something like this. But it is my opinion that the way the Paladin Code is written, a player most likely should at least consider getting that atonement if they willingly adventure with a necromancer that is unwilling to mitigate their raising undead. And that is where the griefing comes in. Those I've seen play necromancers know that's how Paladins are written, and do whatever they can to cost the Paladin cash or just grief the player because its a Paladin and its fun to make them squirm, or whatever.That is taken very out of context. It is not a jerk GM that causes a Paladin to fall for say, killing a helpless enemy. I am saying that causing the Paladin to fall just because they did not try to kill the Necromancer at the table is not okay. If you want to say you feel your paladin need to atone because your role play belief that it is the right thing, and then go get an atonement, then more power to you.I dont think falling is only reason to get atonement. If i played at table with my pally and felt i turned the other way too many times to complete mission and get along, than off to temple he goes. It is an RPG decision.Exactly. Why does this sort of thing have to always be a GM being a jerk? Why can't it be a player making the correct choice based roleplay and on how a Paladin is written up.
If the player of the paladin decides that his character wants an atonement, it is not griefing. It is not "forcing" them to spend cash. That is that player's choice not being forced by the GM.
If the GM says "I am going to make you get an atonement" and the player has not done anything more then complete a scenario with a necromancer in the party and also does not believe they need one, then that is the GM being a jerk.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your paladin signed up for the Society knowing that sometimes they have to deal with such. They aren't forced to join and they aren't forced to stay but they are required to cooperate.No, the character wouldn't. The metagame construct of the game forces the characters to interact when by all means they would have no reason to. Remove the metagame and someone assigning missions to pathfinders would know better than to assign a Necromancer and a Paladin to the same group.
Exactly. Venture-Captains are not dumb. Its simply a construct of the way organized play works, that teams that are functionally disfunctional either from a skillset/class balance or personality balance that makes the V-C's look dumb for assigning that particular team to that particular mission.
|
|
Then why would you even sign up to an organization that allows "abominations" to exist? Your Paladin knew before showing up to join that these things happen and yet he made a choice to be there, why?Your paladin signed up for the Society knowing that sometimes they have to deal with such. They aren't forced to join and they aren't forced to stay but they are required to cooperate.No, the character wouldn't. The metagame construct of the game forces the characters to interact when by all means they would have no reason to. Remove the metagame and someone assigning missions to pathfinders would know better than to assign a Necromancer and a Paladin to the same group.
Good point. Why would a Paladin join the society? Was the Silver Crusade faction retired? I thought they'd join up so they'd have an easier time being shipped to place where they could help.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's my point. I never said anything about a GM forcing a paladin to fall for something like this. But it is my opinion that the way the Paladin Code is written, a player most likely should at least consider getting that atonement if they willingly adventure with a necromancer that is unwilling to mitigate their raising undead. And that is where the griefing comes in. Those I've seen play necromancers know that's how Paladins are written, and do whatever they can to cost the Paladin cash or just grief the player because its a Paladin and its fun to make them squirm, or whatever.That is taken very out of context. It is not a jerk GM that causes a Paladin to fall for say, killing a helpless enemy. I am saying that causing the Paladin to fall just because they did not try to kill the Necromancer at the table is not okay. If you want to say you feel your paladin need to atone because your role play belief that it is the right thing, and then go get an atonement, then more power to you.I dont think falling is only reason to get atonement. If i played at table with my pally and felt i turned the other way too many times to complete mission and get along, than off to temple he goes. It is an RPG decision.Exactly. Why does this sort of thing have to always be a GM being a jerk? Why can't it be a player making the correct choice based roleplay and on how a Paladin is written up.
And I would warn the player just like I have done with 2 Andoran players back in the day purposely working to spoil the play experience of the single chelliax player at the table. First warning was right after their declaration to ruin his faction mission. Second came with a 'would you like your chronicle now with your 0 Xp/prestige?'
|
|
It has been stated that there are evil people in the society. They absolutely would allow necromancers (who are not always evil) per canon material published by Paizo. Fact is, the society would rather have a power hungry wizard on their side than working for a rival agency.I'd argue that the "equally valid desire to raise dead" is not really equally valid. It may be a "meta-game" validity, but realistically, I cannot see the Pathfinder Society actually allowing Necromancers, and were it my home game, they would not.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.
Sure, I agree with you. However, they would not want the type of Necromancers that players often play as part of their organization. Employing people that constantly and rampantly raise up skeletons, zombies, and worse, everywhere they go, is not something I'd want associated with my organization that already has a PR issue of graverobbing.
|
|
That's my point. I never said anything about a GM forcing a paladin to fall for something like this. But it is my opinion that the way the Paladin Code is written, a player most likely should at least consider getting that atonement if they willingly adventure with a necromancer that is unwilling to mitigate their raising undead. And that is where the griefing comes in. Those I've seen play necromancers know that's how Paladins are written, and do whatever they can to cost the Paladin cash or just grief the player because its a Paladin and its fun to make them squirm, or whatever.That is taken very out of context. It is not a jerk GM that causes a Paladin to fall for say, killing a helpless enemy. I am saying that causing the Paladin to fall just because they did not try to kill the Necromancer at the table is not okay. If you want to say you feel your paladin need to atone because your role play belief that it is the right thing, and then go get an atonement, then more power to you.I dont think falling is only reason to get atonement. If i played at table with my pally and felt i turned the other way too many times to complete mission and get along, than off to temple he goes. It is an RPG decision.Exactly. Why does this sort of thing have to always be a GM being a jerk? Why can't it be a player making the correct choice based roleplay and on how a Paladin is written up.And I would warn the player just like I have done with 2 Andoran players back in the day purposely working to spoil the play experience of the single chelliax player at the table. First warning was right after their declaration to ruin his faction mission. Second came with a 'would you like your chronicle now with your 0 Xp/prestige?'
Was the faction mission "acquire slaves" or related?
|
|
That's my point. I never said anything about a GM forcing a paladin to fall for something like this. But it is my opinion that the way the Paladin Code is written, a player most likely should at least consider getting that atonement if they willingly adventure with a necromancer that is unwilling to mitigate their raising undead. And that is where the griefing comes in. Those I've seen play necromancers know that's how Paladins are written, and do whatever they can to cost the Paladin cash or just grief the player because its a Paladin and its fun to make them squirm, or whatever.That is taken very out of context. It is not a jerk GM that causes a Paladin to fall for say, killing a helpless enemy. I am saying that causing the Paladin to fall just because they did not try to kill the Necromancer at the table is not okay. If you want to say you feel your paladin need to atone because your role play belief that it is the right thing, and then go get an atonement, then more power to you.I dont think falling is only reason to get atonement. If i played at table with my pally and felt i turned the other way too many times to complete mission and get along, than off to temple he goes. It is an RPG decision.Exactly. Why does this sort of thing have to always be a GM being a jerk? Why can't it be a player making the correct choice based roleplay and on how a Paladin is written up.If the player of the paladin decides that his character wants an atonement, it is not griefing. It is not "forcing" them to spend cash. That is that player's choice not being forced by the GM.
If the GM says "I am going to make you get an atonement" and the player has not done anything more then complete a scenario with a necromancer in the party and also does not believe they need one, then that is the GM being a jerk.
Except it is.
Paladin or Follower of Pharasma/Sarenrae, I must destroy Undead.
I am unable to stop the creation of Undead due to metagame constructs.
I am unable to stop Undead due to metagame constructs.
I must work with the person making Undead due to metagame contracts.
Due to metagame constructs, I have willingly failed my goddess.
|
|
Was the faction mission "acquire slaves" or related?That's my point. I never said anything about a GM forcing a paladin to fall for something like this. But it is my opinion that the way the Paladin Code is written, a player most likely should at least consider getting that atonement if they willingly adventure with a necromancer that is unwilling to mitigate their raising undead. And that is where the griefing comes in. Those I've seen play necromancers know that's how Paladins are written, and do whatever they can to cost the Paladin cash or just grief the player because its a Paladin and its fun to make them squirm, or whatever.That is taken very out of context. It is not a jerk GM that causes a Paladin to fall for say, killing a helpless enemy. I am saying that causing the Paladin to fall just because they did not try to kill the Necromancer at the table is not okay. If you want to say you feel your paladin need to atone because your role play belief that it is the right thing, and then go get an atonement, then more power to you.I dont think falling is only reason to get atonement. If i played at table with my pally and felt i turned the other way too many times to complete mission and get along, than off to temple he goes. It is an RPG decision.Exactly. Why does this sort of thing have to always be a GM being a jerk? Why can't it be a player making the correct choice based roleplay and on how a Paladin is written up.And I would warn the player just like I have done with 2 Andoran players back in the day purposely working to spoil the play experience of the single chelliax player at the table. First warning was right after their declaration to ruin his faction mission. Second came with a 'would you like your chronicle now with your 0 Xp/prestige?'
No it wasn't. Some of the earlier season missions were pretty competitive I agree but this was nasty from the beginning. Insulting the player right off at introduction with their announcement was the beginning. Setting him into a position to fail in one encounter along with a comment to the effect that he was 'no loss' was another. Actually stealing the mission message to get an idea of it was the last straw. (Caught them tucking it back in my papers on a break)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except it is.
Paladin or Follower of Except it is.
Paladin or Follower of Pharasma/Sarenrae, I must destroy Undead.
I am unable to stop the creation of Undead due to metagame constructs.
I am unable to stop Undead due to metagame constructs.
I must work with the person making Undead due to metagame contracts.
Due to metagame constructs, I have willingly failed my goddess.
Pharasma is True Neutral, right?
So one would *never* see a paladin of Pharasma, as written?
I've seen at least one table where the paladin looked at the necromancer and said "My deity doesn't appreciate that sort of activity. When we are done with this mission, may I please destroy your walking corpse to square matters with them?"
And the necromancer was kind of shocked at that concession but agreed.
There was no "OOH, I'M MAKIN' ANOTHER SKELLIE SCREW YOU!" or anything like that, due to the players (and by extension, characters) working TOGETHER in a logical fashion.
Particularly brilliant point was when the undead meat-shield ended up taking a hit for the paladin, giving them enough time to recover from a particularly nasty blow.
Problem solved.
It's not specified when the Undead need to be stopped, just that they need to be stopped, and having a more nuanced perspective rather than Black and White helps everyone get along for the scenario.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No it wasn't. Some of the earlier season missions were pretty competitive I agree but this was nasty from the beginning. Insulting the player right off at introduction with their announcement was the beginning. Setting him into a position to fail in one encounter along with a comment to the effect that he was 'no loss' was another. Actually stealing the mission message to get an idea of it was the last straw. (Caught them tucking it back in my papers on a break)
Oh wow... that is beyond the pale. If I came back to players snooping through my materials, especially after being a pack of jerks, then I would have kicked them out for cheating right then and there. "Heres your 0xp chronicles, your character is dead, if you don't like it take it up with my VO. Please do, I dare you. "
|
|
I said Paladin or Follower of Pharasma.
And here's the thing about Undead. They're monsters. They're people's bodies mutilated and forced to get up. The vast majority of people will want to destroy them cause they're Abominations. Paladins and followers of Pharadma and Saranrae and other Good aligned deities are just very vehement and proactive about it.
|
|
Sure, I agree with you. However, they would not want the type of Necromancers that players often play as part of their organization. Employing people that constantly and rampantly raise up skeletons, zombies, and worse, everywhere they go, is not something I'd want associated with my organization that already has a PR issue of graverobbing.It has been stated that there are evil people in the society. They absolutely would allow necromancers (who are not always evil) per canon material published by Paizo. Fact is, the society would rather have a power hungry wizard on their side than working for a rival agency.I'd argue that the "equally valid desire to raise dead" is not really equally valid. It may be a "meta-game" validity, but realistically, I cannot see the Pathfinder Society actually allowing Necromancers, and were it my home game, they would not.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.
How is, I killed this T-Rex and now I am raising it an issue of grave robbing? Literally I have never seen a player go to the local cemetery and raise an undead horde. That would be pretty evil and an issue. Raising the corpses of the people we kill that were trying to take our lives is not the same thing by any means.
|
|
Except it is.
Paladin or Follower of Pharasma/Sarenrae, I must destroy Undead.
I am unable to stop the creation of Undead due to metagame constructs.
I am unable to stop Undead due to metagame constructs.
I must work with the person making Undead due to metagame contracts.
Due to metagame constructs, I have willingly failed my goddess.
You seem to forget that those meta-game constraints you are complaining about, also prevent my necromancer from flat out killing your meddling paladin or cleric and raising it to be another member of the horde. Why is the argument always about how the meta constrains the poor paladin/cleric? Everyone is held to constraints by the rules of PFS and the game. If you do not like that fact so much and role play is such a major priority, then only play in home games where is stops being an issue. Otherwise we should all be adults and play nice together.
Edit: for formating
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's still making Undead, which a lot of people take issue with.
Ok, at this point I'm pretty sure this whole thread is going in circles faster then water down a toilet bowl. I'm also pretty sure any semblence of debate is over and the most undead thing here is the thread itself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's still making Undead, which a lot of people take issue with.Ok, at this point I'm pretty sure this whole thread is going in circles faster then water down a toilet bowl. I'm also pretty sure any semblence of debate is over and the most undead thing here is the thread itself.
This debate was over before it began very likely. Gamers are notoriously stubborn and once they have their opinion they will defend it to the death. Nothing short of direct input from an official source can sort this out, and probably not even that.
|
|
Except it is.
Paladin or Follower of Pharasma/Sarenrae, I must destroy Undead.
I am unable to stop the creation of Undead due to metagame constructs.
I am unable to stop Undead due to metagame constructs.
I must work with the person making Undead due to metagame contracts.
Due to metagame constructs, I have willingly failed my goddess.
You seem to forget that those meta-game constraints you are complaining about, also prevent my necromancer from flat out killing your meddling paladin or cleric and raising it to be another member of the horde. Why is the argument always about how the meta constrains the poor paladin/cleric? Everyone is held to constraints by the rules of PFS and the game. If you do not like that fact so much and role play is such a major priority, then only play in home games where is stops being an issue. Otherwise we should all be adults and play nice together.
Edit: for formating
Actually it's more likely that the metagame constraints are preventing the Paladin from killing your Necromancer than the other way around.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I think that are seeing a lot of circular arguments here..
Might I suggest everyone take some time away from the thread?
So far everyone has been nice and respectful, let's keep it that way and cool down BEFORe someone like Chris comes in to deletes post and lock threads.
|
|
Those are not mere metagame constraints. Players are agents of the pathfinder society, and while "ZOMBIE! Smite decapitate, wash rinse repeat" is certainly A viable way to play a paladin it is not the only way to play a paladin. Paladins with that approach would not last long in a society where you are expected to work together with whatever bag of mixed nuts the venture critters woke up for the mission.
As to why a paladin would be a pathfinder,
pathfinders in their quest for loo..erm knowledge happen to re horizontalize an aweful lot of undead, devils, undead, demons, undead devils, and used horse salesmen.
The knowledge they uncover can be useful. Pathfinders were instrumental in turning back the most recent demonic incursion from mendev, both through brute force and their arcane and archeological abilities.
The organization has an amazing amount of knowledge and power concentrated in its hands. Keeping an eye on it, or even better, redirecting it to do good is a noble goal.