Solution for Necromancers in PFS


Pathfinder Society

201 to 250 of 294 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
4/5

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I've played a lot of paladins in PFS, and I've GM'd for a lot of paladins. As such, I've had to cooperate with some distasteful (IC) things in the course of missions, but there has always been some form of compromise found. A few examples :

Party was supposed to return a ring off of a body, and the ring would not come off.

Paladin : "You are not cutting off the hand of this corpse; it would be desrespectful!"
Necromancer : "You got it, boss" *animate dead* "We're carting the whole guy home."
Paladin *repeated facepalms* "Right. You are laying that to rest and we're giving him a proper burial in Absalom."

Conjuration specialist calls in a daemon.
Paladin : "For Yuelral's sake, PLEASE call something from the other side of the spectrum next time!"

Necromancer pulls out a wand of infernal healing.
Paladin : "I would be more than willing to use my person wand of CLW on you if you put that demon-stick away. And don't touch me with it or you will not like where I stick it."

It's all about keeping it within the bounds of RP.

Dark Archive 1/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
re horizontalize

It is words like this that make me enjoy BNW's posts.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
BlackOuroboros wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

Lyric pats Rysky on the shoulder. "Of course you can roleplay your paladin in PFS!" Lyric looks around the room. "My goodness. You can be a wonderful character, and a team player, and a paladin. Being good and lawful does NOT mean boring. I'm a Paladin who collects slightly naughty songs, and is interested in redeeming people."

She pauses. "I have worked with Necromancers, and I've come to terms with them early on. It's important for both of us, if we want to explore and cooperate to figure out the bounds of our working relationship. I've told a necromancer straight out that if he wants to control an undead that was already undead.... Well that's okay. You're taking an evil destructive power and preventing it from hurting people. However, I've also explained that I don't want a soul to fail to find rest, and respectfully requested that they don't animate fresh dead while traveling with me."

She sighs. "I try not to have my rules limit what other characters do. If they animate an undead, I will not smite them. But I will be very, very disappointed, and do everything I can to free that soul at the end of the adventure." She smiles. "I try to see the beauty in others, and to be a team player. If I don't like a proposed solution, I will explain why, and then offer an alternative suggestion. Sometimes if you think outside the box, you can find a path that everyone can agree upon."

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I will also add that roleplaying is alive and well in all my games, whether as a GM or as player. Sometimes if you're playing live it has to be rushed a bit. But oh! In Play-by-Post roleplay in PFS becomes GLORIOUS.

Hmm

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RealAlchemy wrote:

Necromancer pulls out a wand of infernal healing.

Paladin : "I would be more than willing to use my person wand of CLW on you if you put that demon-stick away. And don't touch me with it or you will not like where I stick it."

We call it ecstatic rejuvenation.

And it's not a demon-stick; it's a devil-stick. We're the better fiends and we find your inability to differentiate offensive.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville

What gets me is Infernal is so much better than celestial healing unless you have one very specific PrC in play

My 11th level Magambian Arcanist can get 12 rounds out of Celestial heal but that is as a CAST spell ...wand wise IH works better all week long

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5

Thomas Graham wrote:
What gets me is Infernal is so much better than celestial healing unless you have one very specific PrC in play

Infernal anything is so much better than celestial anything.

1/5 5/5

Malraine wrote:
Thomas Graham wrote:
What gets me is Infernal is so much better than celestial healing unless you have one very specific PrC in play
Infernal anything is so much better than celestial anything.

So would it be considered a gross violation of the 'flavor' rules if one called a(n) Infernal Healing Wand a 'Blessed Touch of My Deity What Is Awesome' Wand' without referring to 'Infernal'? given how horrible Celestial healing is?

4/5 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
So would it be considered a gross violation of the 'flavor' rules if one called a(n) Infernal Healing Wand a 'Blessed Touch of My Deity What Is Awesome' Wand' without referring to 'Infernal'? given how horrible Celestial healing is?

While my character may refer to something using a name that reflects her point-of-view, as a player, I always let the other players at the table know what that something truly is; as a player, I'm not trying to "trick" or "gotcha" the player of a paladin into having that paladin act contrary to its nature.

4/5 5/5

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
So would it be considered a gross violation of the 'flavor' rules if one called a(n) Infernal Healing Wand a 'Blessed Touch of My Deity What Is Awesome' Wand' without referring to 'Infernal'? given how horrible Celestial healing is?

Upon a second reading of this, I believe I may have initially misunderstood your query.

So now I would answer, "Yes." If one is renaming the spell to avoid any associated negative implications, then "Yes." If one's character is simply calling the spell by a different name, but knows full well what it truly is and takes on any associated negative implications, then "No."

The Exchange 4/5 ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A voice from behind a silver mask speaks "Ahhh yes, fortunately Razmir has seen there is a need for a non-evil regenerative spell. Thus may I present to you Razmir's Benevolent Regeneration. While unfortunately you may still feel the same tingle that comes from Infernal Healing, I can assure you that it's just your senses playing tricks on you. And while this spell does normally take material components of considerable cost Razmir in his benevolence has offered to match the price of other similar items, just 750 gold for a fully charged wand. I myself, as a dedicated adventurer and Pathfinder, carry a cure light wounds wand to avoid any misunderstandings."

4/5 5/5 **** Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

Rysky wrote:

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.

Pharasmans cannonically are jerks even without the undead part. They don't not belong in the society if you decide to roleplay them correctly. And by don't belong a large chunk of an entire season deals with something that is on the same tier of undeath for Pharasma.

Silver Crusade

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Rysky wrote:

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.

Pharasmans cannonically are jerks even without the undead part. They don't not belong in the society if you decide to roleplay them correctly. And by don't belong a large chunk of an entire season deals with something that is on the same tier of undeath for Pharasma.

Uh, no they're not, not in the slightest. And seeing as how they oversee births and deaths they're definitely needed in society.


Rysky wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Rysky wrote:

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.

Pharasmans cannonically are jerks even without the undead part. They don't not belong in the society if you decide to roleplay them correctly. And by don't belong a large chunk of an entire season deals with something that is on the same tier of undeath for Pharasma.
Uh, no they're not, not in the slightest. And seeing as how they oversee births and deaths they're definitely needed in society.

not society "The Society" is what he said

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:
Rysky wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Rysky wrote:

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.

Pharasmans cannonically are jerks even without the undead part. They don't not belong in the society if you decide to roleplay them correctly. And by don't belong a large chunk of an entire season deals with something that is on the same tier of undeath for Pharasma.
Uh, no they're not, not in the slightest. And seeing as how they oversee births and deaths they're definitely needed in society.
not society "The Society" is what he said

Ah, missed the "the".

Though that's kinda telling that Necromancers are more wanted than paladins and followers of the goddesses of healing and life and death.

4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Rysky wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Rysky wrote:

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.

Pharasmans cannonically are jerks even without the undead part. They don't not belong in the society if you decide to roleplay them correctly. And by don't belong a large chunk of an entire season deals with something that is on the same tier of undeath for Pharasma.
Uh, no they're not, not in the slightest. And seeing as how they oversee births and deaths they're definitely needed in society.
not society "The Society" is what he said

Ah, missed the "the".

Though that's kinda telling that Necromancers are more wanted than paladins and followers of the goddesses of healing and life and death.

It's really popular to complain about the paladin until the enormous demon comes out and the paladin critical hit smites it.

Sovereign Court 4/5

I had my Cleric get Control Undead for a while, it was fun getting the undead to knell and close their eyes, then have someone hit them for LOTS of damage. Got to do that twice but more often than not other players would outright kill my controlled undead before I could 'release them from their curse.' At the end of combat

So I retained it, and then they have the gall to want to know why?!


Rysky wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Rysky wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Rysky wrote:

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.

Pharasmans cannonically are jerks even without the undead part. They don't not belong in the society if you decide to roleplay them correctly. And by don't belong a large chunk of an entire season deals with something that is on the same tier of undeath for Pharasma.
Uh, no they're not, not in the slightest. And seeing as how they oversee births and deaths they're definitely needed in society.
not society "The Society" is what he said

Ah, missed the "the".

Though that's kinda telling that Necromancers are more wanted than paladins and followers of the goddesses of healing and life and death.

Maybe not more wanted but with paladins at least easier for more parts of the whole to get along with.

Scarab Sages 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally have never had a problem with a Necromancer PC in PFS. And I have played with a few that I can remember... though not one that has ever cast Animate Dead at the table... And not as many as I have Paladins.

I have had a fellow PC (a Paladin) report my PC to the Authorities (i.e. "Called the Cops" on my PC when I used Slight of Hand to get a Faction Mission McGuffin... It seems he objected to my guy "acting in an un-Lawful manor", stealing from a local merchant. The funniest part of this was the fact that it was HIS McGuffin I had pilfered. He told the merchant he wanted it, and when they wouldn't just hand it over... So I "lifted it" and when I gave it to the Pally later... he went back to the Merchant to check my story about how I had gotten it. Then went to the Authorities... sheeesh....)

In fact, I can recall several problem players who were running Paladins... Not by any means all. But enough to cause me to watch for it.

So, when I sit at a table with a group of total strangers, I'm not likely to watch for trouble with the lady running the Necromancer. The Paladin player on the other hand? Got to modify my play style around them - watch for "issues" popping up.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
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.

That's an alignment thing. Or rather, that's a perspective thing. A good character sees death as natural, and regard undeath as a perversion of the natural path.

A Neutral character might regard undead as a very "efficient" option, since it makes use of the otherwise useless human corpse. They'd still be opposed to "Enemy" undead, and they wouldn't go out of their way to kill people just to turn them undead, but if you exist in a line of work that seems to generate lots of corpses....no need to be wasteful.

If in a party with said neutral character, the best approach for the Paladin or Pharasma Follower, is just to focus on not generating corpses. Deal non-lethal damage, stabilize fallen foes, and avoid unnesscessary combat (you know, the things you should probably be doing anyway...).

Silver Crusade

No, Undead are monsters. Just because a Neutral person sees it as "efficient" doesn't change that.

And the restrictions you suggest are not "things they should be doing anyway". A Paladin of Sarenrae, maybe. The others? Not so much.

Scarab Sages

Rysky wrote:

No, Undead are monsters. Just because a Neutral person sees it as "efficient" doesn't change that.

And the restrictions you suggest are not "things they should be doing anyway". A Paladin of Sarenrae, maybe. The others? Not so much.

So for your non-sarenae Paladins and followers are Pharasma, are you role playing them pro-death, just anti-undeath? Does your Paladin sit atop a pile of corpses?

Silver Crusade

Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Rysky wrote:

No, Undead are monsters. Just because a Neutral person sees it as "efficient" doesn't change that.

And the restrictions you suggest are not "things they should be doing anyway". A Paladin of Sarenrae, maybe. The others? Not so much.

So for your non-sarenae Paladins and followers are Pharasma, are you role playing them pro-death, just anti-undeath? Does your Paladin sit atop a pile of corpses?

Trying to parse that, yes, Paladins have no problem killing things that need killing.

4/5 5/5 **** Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Rysky wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Rysky wrote:

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.

Pharasmans cannonically are jerks even without the undead part. They don't not belong in the society if you decide to roleplay them correctly. And by don't belong a large chunk of an entire season deals with something that is on the same tier of undeath for Pharasma.
Uh, no they're not, not in the slightest. And seeing as how they oversee births and deaths they're definitely needed in society.
not society "The Society" is what he said

Ah, missed the "the".

Though that's kinda telling that Necromancers are more wanted than paladins and followers of the goddesses of healing and life and death.

She's a jerk. Don't get all huffy and puffy when she and her followers are portrayed as jerks. Here is the goddess who tortured poor gnomes and well you want me to sympathize with that?

Dark Archive 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Rysky wrote:

No, Undead are monsters. Just because a Neutral person sees it as "efficient" doesn't change that.

And the restrictions you suggest are not "things they should be doing anyway". A Paladin of Sarenrae, maybe. The others? Not so much.

So for your non-sarenae Paladins and followers are Pharasma, are you role playing them pro-death, just anti-undeath? Does your Paladin sit atop a pile of corpses?
Trying to parse that, yes, Paladins have no problem killing things that need killing.

Almost all of your comments seem to point towards you believe every character views the undead as a problem. You as the player are injecting that sentiment into all your characters, which sounds less like role playing and more like personal belief.

Also Paladins as you are portraying them should absolutely have problems being forced to resort to killing. Several Paladin codes say that killing should be the last resort and that taking life in general is rarely a good thing. You seem to cherry pick the parts of the code you believe in while ignoring others.

Silver Crusade 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Rysky wrote:

No, Undead are monsters. Just because a Neutral person sees it as "efficient" doesn't change that.

And the restrictions you suggest are not "things they should be doing anyway". A Paladin of Sarenrae, maybe. The others? Not so much.

So for your non-sarenae Paladins and followers are Pharasma, are you role playing them pro-death, just anti-undeath? Does your Paladin sit atop a pile of corpses?
Trying to parse that, yes, Paladins have no problem killing things that need killing.

No, YOUR paladin has no problem killing things that need killing. The word "paladin" does not represent a monolithic block of identical personalities. Heck, I have two PFS paladins with vastly different takes on this, not to mention my several other lawful good characters.

One paladin has a "smite em all and let the gods sort em out" personality. That one believes that once someone chooses to attack the good guys, they've made their choice and deserve to die for it.

The other is a nice, gentle person who just wants to help out. She doesn't like violence, but realizes that in a dangerous world, sometimes it's necessary. She's very reluctant to killing anything with a mind unless absolutely necessary.

Then there's my lawful good warpriest of Shelyn who absolutely refuses to kill anything with a mind, under ANY circumstances. As a felon who found religion and redemption in prison, he wants to offer the same chance to all enemies. And he's not quite smart enough to realize that intelligent undead, such as ghouls, are physically incapable of taking him up on the offer (7 intelligence).

But as I've said numerous times in the past, any paladin who joins the Pathfinder Society must honestly believe that directing the Society's resources towards good is a worthwhile cause, or else they wouldn't have joined. Thus, working with evil to succeed at a Society mission counts as "the greater good", and makes it allowable under any paladin code. And since they swore an oath to "Explore, Report, Cooperate", breaking that oath by refusing to cooperate would actually violate their paladin code. They might not like it, but working with evil on Society missions is sometimes necessary. That goes for taking orders from Zarta Dralneen (who does detect as evil, if any paladin ever bothered to check) just as much as traveling with a necromancer who insists on raising the corpses of fallen foes as walking meat shields.

If it ever came up at a table where I was playing one of my paladins (it hasn't yet, and they have 9 combined levels of experience), I'd see it as a fun role playing opportunity. My paladins would object, and probably complain a bit, but they'd play along until the end of the mission. Then they'd insist on putting the poor soul's body to rest once the mission is over.

Silver Crusade

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Rysky wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Rysky wrote:

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.

Pharasmans cannonically are jerks even without the undead part. They don't not belong in the society if you decide to roleplay them correctly. And by don't belong a large chunk of an entire season deals with something that is on the same tier of undeath for Pharasma.
Uh, no they're not, not in the slightest. And seeing as how they oversee births and deaths they're definitely needed in society.
not society "The Society" is what he said

Ah, missed the "the".

Though that's kinda telling that Necromancers are more wanted than paladins and followers of the goddesses of healing and life and death.

She's a jerk. Don't get all huffy and puffy when she and her followers are portrayed as jerks. Here is the goddess who tortured poor gnomes and well you want me to sympathize with that?

???

Silver Crusade

RSX Raver wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Rysky wrote:

No, Undead are monsters. Just because a Neutral person sees it as "efficient" doesn't change that.

And the restrictions you suggest are not "things they should be doing anyway". A Paladin of Sarenrae, maybe. The others? Not so much.

So for your non-sarenae Paladins and followers are Pharasma, are you role playing them pro-death, just anti-undeath? Does your Paladin sit atop a pile of corpses?
Trying to parse that, yes, Paladins have no problem killing things that need killing.

Almost all of your comments seem to point towards you believe every character views the undead as a problem. You as the player are injecting that sentiment into all your characters, which sounds less like role playing and more like personal belief.

Also Paladins as you are portraying them should absolutely have problems being forced to resort to killing. Several Paladin codes say that killing should be the last resort and that taking life in general is rarely a good thing. You seem to cherry pick the parts of the code you believe in while ignoring others.

Undead are a problem, they are monsters. Everything in-universe backs this up.

Certain Paladin codes mentions killing as a last resort, that is not universal for Paladins. A Paladin's whole thing is smiting evil. I'm not saying they have to go around executing everything that get's knocked unconscious, but they don't have to hold themselves back in a fight against Evil.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville

Rysky wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Rysky wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Rysky wrote:

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.

Pharasmans cannonically are jerks even without the undead part. They don't not belong in the society if you decide to roleplay them correctly. And by don't belong a large chunk of an entire season deals with something that is on the same tier of undeath for Pharasma.
Uh, no they're not, not in the slightest. And seeing as how they oversee births and deaths they're definitely needed in society.
not society "The Society" is what he said

Ah, missed the "the".

Though that's kinda telling that Necromancers are more wanted than paladins and followers of the goddesses of healing and life and death.

She's a jerk. Don't get all huffy and puffy when she and her followers are portrayed as jerks. Here is the goddess who tortured poor gnomes and well you want me to sympathize with that?
???

According to lore (in the one of the recent books even), the Gnomes got exiled because they worked for someone who tried to create their very own soul stream..

Pharasma took.. umbrage. The unnamed Fae lord/gosling is long forgottten but the Gnomes got put into the mortal world by her.

Or something to that effect.

Silver Crusade

Fromper wrote:

No, YOUR paladin has no problem killing things that need killing. The word "paladin" does not represent a monolithic block of identical personalities. Heck, I have two PFS paladins with vastly different takes on this, not to mention my several other lawful good characters.

One paladin has a "smite em all and let the gods sort em out" personality. That one believes that once someone chooses to attack the good guys, they've made their choice and deserve to die for it.

The other is a nice, gentle person who just wants to help out. She doesn't like violence, but realizes that in a dangerous world, sometimes it's necessary. She's very reluctant to killing anything with a mind unless absolutely necessary.

Then there's my lawful good warpriest of Shelyn who absolutely refuses to kill anything with a mind, under ANY circumstances. As a felon who found religion and redemption in prison, he wants to offer the same chance to all enemies. And he's not quite smart enough to realize that intelligent undead, such as ghouls, are physically incapable of taking him up on the offer (7 intelligence).

But as I've said numerous times in the past, any paladin who joins the Pathfinder Society must honestly believe that directing the Society's resources towards good is a worthwhile cause, or else they wouldn't have joined. Thus, working with evil to succeed at a Society mission counts as "the greater good", and makes it allowable under any paladin code. And since they swore an oath to "Explore, Report, Cooperate", breaking that oath by refusing to cooperate would actually violate their paladin code. They might not like it, but working with evil on Society missions is sometimes necessary. That goes for taking orders from Zarta Dralneen (who does detect as evil, if any paladin ever bothered to check) just as much as traveling with a necromancer who insists on raising the corpses of fallen foes as walking meat shields.

If it ever came up at a table where I was playing one of my paladins (it hasn't yet, and they have 9 combined levels of experience), I'd see it as a fun role playing opportunity. My paladins would object, and probably complain a bit, but they'd play along until the end of the mission. Then they'd insist on putting the poor soul's body to rest once the mission is over.

The vanilla Paladin doesn't a problem putting down evil things, you can be a pacifist redeemer Paladin and there are Deities that back that up, but they're not the default.

"And since they swore an oath to "Explore, Report, Cooperate", breaking that oath by refusing to cooperate would actually violate their paladin code."

What, no they wouldn't. The Code also says they can't ally with Evil but then PFS says Evil effectively doesn't exist is the only reason that crops since otherwise every Necromancer creating undead would be Evil.

What kind of scenario is "I must work with Evil or Fall, but if I work with Evil I also Fall"???

Working for the greater good actually means the greater good, not just complete this mission so we can get rewards.

That's another thing I don't like that PFS enforces, encouraging Players and Characters to treat undead as slight annoyances rather than monsters, rather than people's corpses getting desecrated.

Silver Crusade

Thomas Graham wrote:
Rysky wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Rysky wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Rysky wrote:

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.

Pharasmans cannonically are jerks even without the undead part. They don't not belong in the society if you decide to roleplay them correctly. And by don't belong a large chunk of an entire season deals with something that is on the same tier of undeath for Pharasma.
Uh, no they're not, not in the slightest. And seeing as how they oversee births and deaths they're definitely needed in society.
not society "The Society" is what he said

Ah, missed the "the".

Though that's kinda telling that Necromancers are more wanted than paladins and followers of the goddesses of healing and life and death.

She's a jerk. Don't get all huffy and puffy when she and her followers are portrayed as jerks. Here is the goddess who tortured poor gnomes and well you want me to sympathize with that?
???

According to lore (in the one of the recent books even), the Gnomes got exiled because they worked for someone who tried to create their very own soul stream..

Pharasma took.. umbrage. The unnamed Fae lord/gosling is long forgottten but the Gnomes got put into the mortal world by her.

Or something to that effect.

Okay... wouldn't really equate that with torture. And because of her you apparently have Gnomes as a playable race.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Thomas Graham wrote:
Rysky wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Rysky wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Rysky wrote:

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.

Pharasmans cannonically are jerks even without the undead part. They don't not belong in the society if you decide to roleplay them correctly. And by don't belong a large chunk of an entire season deals with something that is on the same tier of undeath for Pharasma.
Uh, no they're not, not in the slightest. And seeing as how they oversee births and deaths they're definitely needed in society.
not society "The Society" is what he said

Ah, missed the "the".

Though that's kinda telling that Necromancers are more wanted than paladins and followers of the goddesses of healing and life and death.

She's a jerk. Don't get all huffy and puffy when she and her followers are portrayed as jerks. Here is the goddess who tortured poor gnomes and well you want me to sympathize with that?
???

According to lore (in the one of the recent books even), the Gnomes got exiled because they worked for someone who tried to create their very own soul stream..

Pharasma took.. umbrage. The unnamed Fae lord/gosling is long forgottten but the Gnomes got put into the mortal world by her.

Or something to that effect.

Okay... wouldn't really equate that with torture. And because of her you apparently have Gnomes as a playable race.

And Gnomes got mortality, disease and the Bleaching.

Hence some folks of certain stature thing she's a 'meanie'.

Silver Crusade

Ah. We still have them as a playable race though.

Dark Archive 1/5

Rysky wrote:

The vanilla Paladin doesn't a problem putting down evil things, you can be a pacifist redeemer Paladin and there are Deities that back that up, but they're not the default.

"And since they swore an oath to "Explore, Report, Cooperate", breaking that oath by refusing to cooperate would actually violate their paladin code."

What, no they wouldn't. The Code also says they can't ally with Evil but then PFS says Evil effectively doesn't exist is the only reason that crops since otherwise every Necromancer creating undead would be Evil.

What kind of scenario is "I must work with Evil or Fall, but if I work with Evil I also Fall"???

Working for the greater good actually means the greater good, not just complete this mission so we can get rewards.

That's another thing I don't like that PFS enforces, encouraging Players and Characters to treat undead as slight annoyances rather than monsters, rather than people's corpses getting desecrated.

Have you noticed multiple people have told you that this is YOUR take on the paladin and not shared by everyone? You act like every paladin behaves the exact same way, which is like a jerk from the way you portray them. In PFS your paladin has to follow a deity, if you are so insistent on "role play" then you should also follow that specific deity's paladin code.

Also the generic paladin code does not say that they can not associate with evil. In fact the part about not associating with evil is not even part of the code at all. The section called Code of Conduct (CRB Pg. 63) is separate from the section called Associates (CRB Pg. 64). If you look under the rules for Ex-Paladin you will see if calls out the Code of Conduct but not the Associates sections.

Ex-Paladin CRB Pg. 64 wrote:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield

proficiencies).

Silver Crusade

I'm not saying all Paladin characters are okay with killing, I'm saying the Paladin class itself has no problems with it.

I would consider the Associates thing a part of their code (little c) since it's telling them what they can and can't do.

Associates wrote:
While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.[/b] A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

If it's saying you should regularly seek atonement and immediately break things off if it's not serving the greater good that kinds seems like you would fall if you hang around a necromancer raising the undead just for funsies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would assume that due to the nature of the Society they probably have provisions set up to cover the atonement spells needed due to their own horrible scheduling. In fact that might be something worth seeking a more direct answer on from the higher ups.

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:
I would assume that due to the nature of the Society they probably have provisions set up to cover the atonement spells needed due to their own horrible scheduling. In fact that might be something worth seeking a more direct answer on from the higher ups.

Yeah, that would... yeah...

Silver Crusade 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

"And since they swore an oath to "Explore, Report, Cooperate", breaking that oath by refusing to cooperate would actually violate their paladin code."

What, no they wouldn't. The Code also says they can't ally with Evil but then PFS says Evil effectively doesn't exist is the only reason that crops since otherwise every Necromancer creating undead would be Evil.

What kind of scenario is "I must work with Evil or Fall, but if I work with Evil I also Fall"???

Working for the greater good actually means the greater good, not just complete this mission so we can get rewards.

Did you bother reading what I actually wrote? For that matter, did you bother reading what the Core Rulebook says about paladins working with evil? Here it is, for reference:

Core Rulebook wrote:
a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil.

As I said in the part of my post that you seem to have missed:

Quote:
any paladin who joins the Pathfinder Society must honestly believe that directing the Society's resources towards good is a worthwhile cause, or else they wouldn't have joined.

Paladins don't join the Society to "just complete this mission so we can get rewards". Many of the missions help keep Golarion safe from evil. You're keeping ancient, powerful magic items out of the hands of evil enemies. You're fighting demons in the World Wound. You're protecting a village of farmers from bandits. You're stopping a dangerous narcotic from hitting the streets of major cities. You're working to free a good elemental lord from imprisonment. You're fighting against an awakened Runelord.

Yes, sometimes the Society will send you on routine missions that aren't as obviously good and noble as that, to help the Society gain allies or wealth or whatever. But even those can be seen as helping the Society gain the resources it needs for the more important stuff. It's all part of fighting against the greater evils of the world.

And occasionally they have to work with some unsavory associates (or members) of the Pathfinder Society to do it. Not just necromancers and their pet zombies, but more commonly you'll work with Sczarni thugs, uncaring barbarians who just like to kill things, greedy rogues, pirates, clerics of Asmodeus, Zarta Dralneen, Guaril Karela, etc.

Given what I quoted above from the Core Rulebook about working with evil to defeat a greater evil, any paladin should be ok with letting a zombie walk around for a few hours, if succeeding at the mission will help bring more power to bear against the demons of the World Wound, or keep powerful magic out of Aspis hands. Just make sure the zombie is properly put to rest at the end of the mission.

Dark Archive 1/5

Rysky wrote:

I'm not saying all Paladin characters are okay with killing, I'm saying the Paladin class itself has no problems with it.

I would consider the Associates thing a part of their code (little c) since it's telling them what they can and can't do.

Associates wrote:
While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.[/b] A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

If it's saying you should regularly seek atonement and immediately break things off if it's not serving the greater good that kinds seems like you would fall if you hang around a necromancer raising the undead just for funsies.

That is great that you want to take it that way, but the class was not written that it is part of the code. And like Fromper pointed out, it is not forbidden and can happen if the greater good demands it. In fact I just says avoids, that is not absolute language by any stretch. I avoid eating olives, I will not stop being me if I eat one. Honoring an oath to the society and having to work with the NOT evil aligned Necromancer is by no means hanging out for "funsies".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Made a thread for that Rysky!

Silver Crusade

Fromper wrote:
Rysky wrote:

"And since they swore an oath to "Explore, Report, Cooperate", breaking that oath by refusing to cooperate would actually violate their paladin code."

What, no they wouldn't. The Code also says they can't ally with Evil but then PFS says Evil effectively doesn't exist is the only reason that crops since otherwise every Necromancer creating undead would be Evil.

What kind of scenario is "I must work with Evil or Fall, but if I work with Evil I also Fall"???

Working for the greater good actually means the greater good, not just complete this mission so we can get rewards.

Did you bother reading what I actually wrote? For that matter, did you bother reading what the Core Rulebook says about paladins working with evil? Here it is, for reference:

Core Rulebook wrote:
a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil.

As I said in the part of my post that you seem to have missed:

Quote:
any paladin who joins the Pathfinder Society must honestly believe that directing the Society's resources towards good is a worthwhile cause, or else they wouldn't have joined.

Paladins don't join the Society to "just complete this mission so we can get rewards". Many of the missions help keep Golarion safe from evil. You're keeping ancient, powerful magic items out of the hands of evil enemies. You're fighting demons in the World Wound. You're protecting a village of farmers from bandits. You're stopping a dangerous narcotic from hitting the streets of major cities. You're working to free a good elemental lord from imprisonment. You're fighting against an awakened Runelord.

Yes, sometimes the Society will send you on routine missions that aren't as obviously good and noble as that, to help the Society gain allies or wealth or whatever. But even those can be seen as helping the Society gain the resources it needs for the more important stuff. It's all part of fighting against the greater evils of the world.

And...

i did read and quote that section.

And if you're actively doing something for the greater good okay, like one of the Worldwound missions. But that's not every mission so the Paladin partnering with a Necromancer to go get a VC pizza doesn't cut it. And even if the Paladin destroys the Undead afterwards they haven't stopped the root of the problem.

How often are these mission for the greater good and not just to acquire this McGuffin or go explore this place?

Silver Crusade

RSX Raver wrote:
Rysky wrote:

I'm not saying all Paladin characters are okay with killing, I'm saying the Paladin class itself has no problems with it.

I would consider the Associates thing a part of their code (little c) since it's telling them what they can and can't do.

Associates wrote:
While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.[/b] A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

If it's saying you should regularly seek atonement and immediately break things off if it's not serving the greater good that kinds seems like you would fall if you hang around a necromancer raising the undead just for funsies.

That is great that you want to take it that way, but the class was not written that it is part of the code. And like Fromper pointed out, it is not forbidden and can happen if the greater good demands it. In fact I just says avoids, that is not absolute language by any stretch. I avoid eating olives, I will not stop being me if I eat one. Honoring an oath to the society and having to work with the NOT evil aligned Necromancer is by no means hanging out for "funsies".

You don't have to get an atonement if you eat an olive though.

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:
Made a thread for that Rysky!

Thankies.

Sovereign Court 5/5

Rysky wrote:
Ah. We still have them as a playable race though.

yeah, and so are Wayang.

wait, Wayang aren't from around here... they still have a "homeland" to go back to.

Or was your point that it's ok to drive a people from their homes into a land that regularly kills them (slowly, thru mortality, disease and the Bleaching) - as long as we get to run them in PFS?


Rysky wrote:
RSX Raver wrote:
Rysky wrote:

I'm not saying all Paladin characters are okay with killing, I'm saying the Paladin class itself has no problems with it.

I would consider the Associates thing a part of their code (little c) since it's telling them what they can and can't do.

Associates wrote:
While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.[/b] A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

If it's saying you should regularly seek atonement and immediately break things off if it's not serving the greater good that kinds seems like you would fall if you hang around a necromancer raising the undead just for funsies.

That is great that you want to take it that way, but the class was not written that it is part of the code. And like Fromper pointed out, it is not forbidden and can happen if the greater good demands it. In fact I just says avoids, that is not absolute language by any stretch. I avoid eating olives, I will not stop being me if I eat one. Honoring an oath to the society and having to work with the NOT evil aligned Necromancer is by no means hanging out for "funsies".
You don't have to get an atonement if you eat an olive though.

No but if I even taste banana in something it looks like the exorcism.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, this thread has convinced me to create a Necromancer Paladin... so, would that make him a Necroladin or a Palamancer?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muse. wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ah. We still have them as a playable race though.

yeah, and so are Wayang.

wait, Wayang aren't from around here... they still have a "homeland" to go back to.

Or was your point that it's ok to drive a people from their homes into a land that regularly kills them (slowly, thru mortality, disease and the Bleaching) - as long as we get to run them in PFS?

-_-

It's a mythological origin story that may not even be true about how gnomes became mortal. They weren't "tortured". Otherwise all Humanoids are constantly being tortured for existing.

Silver Crusade

Muse. wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Muse. wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ah. We still have them as a playable race though.

yeah, and so are Wayang.

wait, Wayang aren't from around here... they still have a "homeland" to go back to.

Or was your point that it's ok to drive a people from their homes into a land that regularly kills them (slowly, thru mortality, disease and the Bleaching) - as long as we get to run them in PFS?

-_-

It's a mythological origin story that may not even be true about how gnomes became mortal. They weren't "tortured". Otherwise all Humanoids are constantly being tortured for existing.

LOL! yeah. I guess if you were to drive all humans onto the plane of Shadow, reduce their average life-spans to 25 years and subject them to scurvy (lack of sunlight), you would get much the same effect... Drive them out of their home and give them the "gift" of mortality (after all, you get more souls passing thru your control this way...)... in a few generations no one will even notice that it hurts...

that would be different as you're imprisoning mortals. Striking some immortal creature down into the mortal world so it can live and exist as a mortal is not that uncommon of an origin.

Going off that story the Precursor gnomes weren't entirely innocent victims either.

First World wrote:
The gnomes she cast into the Material Plane, tying them forever into the cycle of souls, that they might truly know the death and judgment they had been so eager to play at. Whether this was intended as punishment or simply an ironic reminder to be careful what one wishes for is anyone’s guess.

Copy paste isn't working for he first part but the then gnomes were ecstatic with the Eldest giving them souls and killing them. So they either were fine with stealing souls or they wanted to be mortal from the get go.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

ask three gnomes get coffee mug answers

1 to 50 of 294 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Solution for Necromancers in PFS All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.