Sanctify "corpse"

[Khi'Khi]

Alright folks, I need help with a ruling. And this one takes some explanation.

So we're running a higher level campaign. The BBEG is a pit fiend whom our resident mage had recently screwed over in a deal. Said devil is unbelievably pissed, and decides to go after the entire party in revenge. So what does any sufficiently evil, sadistic being do? Not go after the heroes themselves, of course, but rather their loved ones! Almost everyone gets a friend or family member kidnapped (save for those PC's of the "friendless orphan" variety.) The unfortunates are dragged off, body and soul to Hell for eternal torment.

Naturally, the heroes gear up to go bash some devil heads in. We drive through the various levels of Hell until we make it to the pit fiend. The encounter is a trap, and each player soon finds themselves enclosed in some foul chamber with the mutilated (but still living) bodies of their loved ones. My character (a cleric) is trapped with her husband, who's been strung up on some huge, spiky rack. He's so far gone that she decides to mercy-kill him, freeing his soul to go to Heaven where it belongs.

Now I had previously rolled a crit on a knowledge roll concerning pit fiends, and knew that they have the "Deathmastery" ability, allowing them to make controlled ghosts out of recently-slain beings. As a precaution against this, my character follows the mercy-kill immediately with a "Sanctify Corpse" spell, which should have protected him from this ability. The pit fiend (and the GM) did not seem to be expecting this. In what I think was a revenge move, it was ruled that the spell only applied to the husband's body, not his spirit. So the husband rises as a mindless, wailing ghost. And to add insult to injury (or vice versa,) the pit fiend makes his ghost drag my character onto the rack to be tortured forever in his place.

So what say you all? I'm thinking its a matter of pedantry, either on my part or his. He points to the spell name and use of the word "corpse," whereas I point to the part that directly states that it protects against "foes that create undead from their attacks." (Link for posterity. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/sanctify-corpse)

[Zanos]

So we're running a higher level campaign. The BBEG is a pit fiend whom our resident mage had recently screwed over in a deal. Said devil is unbelievably pissed, and decides to go after the entire party in revenge. So what does any sufficiently evil, sadistic being do? Not go after the heroes themselves, of course, but rather their loved ones! Almost everyone gets a friend or family member kidnapped (save for those PC's of the "friendless orphan" variety.) The unfortunates are dragged off, body and soul to Hell for eternal torment. Naturally, the heroes gear up to go bash some devil heads in. We drive through the various levels of Hell until we make it to the pit fiend.

An awfully tired cliche. Probably why friendless orphans are so common among PCs. Beating up Devils in hell is always a bit of fun, however.


The encounter is a trap,

How unexpected! :smalltongue:


and each player soon finds themselves enclosed in some foul chamber with the mutilated (but still living) bodies of their loved ones. My character (a cleric) is trapped with her husband, who's been strung up on some huge, spiky rack. He's so far gone that she decides to mercy-kill him, freeing his soul to go to Heaven where it belongs.

Now I had previously rolled a crit on a knowledge roll concerning pit fiends, and knew that they have the "Deathmastery" ability, allowing them to make controlled ghosts out of recently-slain beings. As a precaution against this, my character follows the mercy-kill immediately with a "Sanctify Corpse" spell, which should have protected him from this ability. The pit fiend (and the GM) did not seem to be expecting this. In what I think was a revenge move, it was ruled that the spell only applied to the husband's body, not his spirit. So the husband rises as a mindless, wailing ghost. And to add insult to injury (or vice versa,) the pit fiend makes his ghost drag my character onto the rack to be tortured forever in his place.

So what say you all? I'm thinking its a matter of pedantry, either on my part or his. He points to the spell name and use of the word "corpse," whereas I point to the part that directly states that it protects against "foes that create undead from their attacks." (Link for posterity. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/sanctify-corpse)
The hell? It seems like your DM punished you for making your knowledge check and having the forethought to take precautions against the Pit Fiend. What's his plan for that scenario, you lose and are tortured forever? Did he give you a save or anything?

Pretty sure your DM is in the wrong as far as rules go. Wraiths and Shadows are two creatures the spell specifically protects against, and both those creatures are incorporeal and presumably made from the slain creatures soul. He's definitely in the wrong as far as being a good DM goes.

[Khi'Khi]

The hell? It seems like your DM punished you for making your knowledge check and having the forethought to take precautions against the Pit Fiend. What's his plan for that scenario, you lose and are tortured forever? Did he give you a save or anything?

.

I'll admit, "forever" was a misleading choice of words. I did have to make some fortitude saves to see how I survived, and the party did eventually bust into the chamber and got me out. My joints may have been put back into place, but the mental scars....those won't heal so easy. There's no "cure emotional wounds" in Pathfinder.

[Segev]

Rule Zero says the DM is never wrong, but he's definitely invoking it here. Sanctify Corpse expressly prevents any kind of undead being made from that person. Yes, including spirit-only ones.

[Raz Dazzle]

In what I think was a revenge move, it was ruled that the spell only applied to the husband's body, not his spirit.

...

He points to the spell name and use of the word "corpse"

The spell itself applies to the body, but it still protects the spirit. "If the corpse is of a person slain by a creature that creates undead out of its slain foes, that effect is delayed until the end of this spell." The pit fiend is a creature that creates undead from its slain foes, so if such a foe has this spell cast on their corpse, the effect is delayed. It's clear as day.

Actually the spell isn't even needed in this scenario - Death Mastery only affects foes the pit fiend slays, and you killed your husband yourself. It seems like your GM is being a jerk.

[WarKitty]

I'll be honest, I'd be a little pissed off at a DM who did that. Rule zero has its place, but it shouldn't be used to negate player creativity. Although as a DM I understand the temptation.

[Segev]

My Evil DM instincts would be to see if I could find a way to justify the husband voluntarily staying in Hell. Possibly by some contract he made with the Pit Fiend to try to spare his wife. And his own ruthless dedication to protecting her leads him to skyrocket up the hellish hierarchy, so the cleric finds in a little bit that her beloved husband - who still considers her his wife and is quite devoted to her - is a powerful Devil in his own right.

Which would then lead either to a "make it work somehow," "tragic conflict," or "redemption" story, depending on the PC's actions. (Or "cleric falls to evil" story, if she went to join him, instead.)

[denthor]

I agree with you your GM had an ecounterror in mind you broke it bonus points for you


We need a professional opinion.

I have a distaste for this:

RED FEL

RED FEL

RED FEL

You have been summoned dance

[icefractal]

Wow, that sounds like some grade A bull**** on the DM's part. Even setting up this kind of no-win scenario is highly questionable, but then using fiat to ensure he got his way? Terrible.

I think in this case, you'd be justified in using passive-aggressive head-canon. Meaning that you simply deny the validity of the DM's narration here, and substitute what would have been the fair outcome. As far as your own roleplaying that is, I'm not saying you stand up on the table and announce it. Emotional scars? What emotional scars, they were never there to begin with. :smalltongue: Not a very friendly move, but this DM would benefit from a (metaphorical) slap with the clue-bat.

[Khi'Khi]

My Evil DM instincts would be to see if I could find a way to justify the husband voluntarily staying in Hell. Possibly by some contract he made with the Pit Fiend to try to spare his wife. And his own ruthless dedication to protecting her leads him to skyrocket up the hellish hierarchy, so the cleric finds in a little bit that her beloved husband - who still considers her his wife and is quite devoted to her - is a powerful Devil in his own right.

Which would then lead either to a "make it work somehow," "tragic conflict," or "redemption" story, depending on the PC's actions. (Or "cleric falls to evil" story, if she went to join him, instead.)

My GM had apparently been planning a slanted version of this. The chambers we were trapped in were supposed to turn the friends or family members into lemures, which would then attack forcing the characters to kill them. The horror, misery, and self-loathing that arose from this (along with further tortures) were supposed to turn our characters themselves toward "the dark side." We would have to decide whether we would hold fast or give in.

But since my character performed a clear-headed and merciful action, those starter emotions weren't there. (Not that she wasn't horribly grieved for what she had to do.) So then I got the pit fiend's (read GM's) middle finger.

[Fizban]

Yeah, straight bs. You cast a spell that explicitly prevents the use of an ability you were warned of by an in-game knowledge roll, and the DM ignores it. Rule zero my ass, the DM can be as wrong as anyone else and they owe you an apology.

[Mordaedil]

If I were the DM I would have done that encounter differently, but he clearly had a very specific idea in mind and you smartly circumvented it, he panicked and made the wrong call.

It happens. He was wrong. Game just needs to go on though.

[DracoknightZero]

I am afraid you have been struck by a DM which likes to make features of the game useless at his whim, personally i would say this is a missuse of the "rule zero" just so he can "rail" the encounter into the way he wanted.

[Crake]

I just had a quick read of the deathmastery ability:


The pit fiend duke's ability to manipulate the souls of the damned extends beyond the standard devil shaping power. Whenever a pit fiend slays a humanoid, it can attempt to transform the slain creature's soul into a ghost under the pit fiend's control. The pit fiend may control a number of ghosts in this manner equal to its Charisma modifier.

I bolded the part in black. If you slew them, the pit fiend should have had no control over them at all, with or without the sanctify corpse spell.

[Red Fel]

We need a professional opinion.

I have a distaste for this:

RED FEL

RED FEL

RED FEL

You have been summoned dance

Ugh, why do people call me for rules issues? Fine, let's do this.


Alright folks, I need help with a ruling. And this one takes some explanation.

In the words of my favorite radio psychiatrist: I'm listening.


So we're running a higher level campaign. The BBEG is a pit fiend whom our resident mage had recently screwed over in a deal.

http://i.makeagif.com/media/5-19-2015/TWgmiv.gif

"Not a great plan."


Said devil is unbelievably pissed, and decides to go after the entire party in revenge. So what does any sufficiently evil, sadistic being do? Not go after the heroes themselves, of course, but rather their loved ones!

On the one hand, a classic strategy. On the other, these are PCs, which makes this...

http://i.makeagif.com/media/5-19-2015/TWgmiv.gif

"Not a great plan."


Almost everyone gets a friend or family member kidnapped (save for those PC's of the "friendless orphan" variety.) The unfortunates are dragged off, body and soul to Hell for eternal torment.

Naturally, the heroes gear up to go bash some devil heads in. We drive through the various levels of Hell until we make it to the pit fiend. The encounter is a trap, and each player soon finds themselves enclosed in some foul chamber with the mutilated (but still living) bodies of their loved ones. My character (a cleric) is trapped with her husband, who's been strung up on some huge, spiky rack. He's so far gone that she decides to mercy-kill him, freeing his soul to go to Heaven where it belongs.

Now I had previously rolled a crit on a knowledge roll concerning pit fiends, and knew that they have the "Deathmastery" ability, allowing them to make controlled ghosts out of recently-slain beings. As a precaution against this, my character follows the mercy-kill immediately with a "Sanctify Corpse" spell, which should have protected him from this ability. The pit fiend (and the GM) did not seem to be expecting this. In what I think was a revenge move, it was ruled that the spell only applied to the husband's body, not his spirit. So the husband rises as a mindless, wailing ghost. And to add insult to injury (or vice versa,) the pit fiend makes his ghost drag my character onto the rack to be tortured forever in his place.

Charming.


So what say you all? I'm thinking its a matter of pedantry, either on my part or his. He points to the spell name and use of the word "corpse," whereas I point to the part that directly states that it protects against "foes that create undead from their attacks." (Link for posterity. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/sanctify-corpse)

To be pedantic, he's more correct than you are. The specific (descriptive) language is "This spell blesses a corpse with positive energy, preventing it from being turned into an undead creature." The language that you are citing, on the other hand, is "If the corpse is of a person slain by a creature that creates undead out of its slain foes (such as a shadow, vampire, or wraith), that effect is delayed until the end of this spell." So even if you assume that "foes that create undead from their attacks" includes Pit Fiends, (which the examples given don't seem to suggest,) that effect would only be delayed, not prevented, by this spell.

Further, rules interpretation is absolutely a matter of pedantry. They are words, we are trying to interpret them and reach a specific meaning. That's almost the definition of pedantry. In fact, that is the definition: "Excessive concern with minor details and rules."

Would I have ruled differently? Possibly. I might have given you bonus points for creativity. The spell could be interpreted as protecting the person represented by the corpse, in which case, absolutely, no ghost, no nothing. And as a general rule, I like to reward out-of-the-box thinking by players, within reason. But was he within rights to interpret a spell that specifically refers to the corpse as offering no protection to the soul? Technically, yeah, I think so.

Now, all that said, his response is a bit severe. It's one thing to twist the knife by saying something like, "Your spell causes the corpse to glow with a warm, white light, for a moment. You know that his body is safe from Hell's depravities." And then to follow it with his spirit rising from the corpse like a hateful mist. That's cruel and sadistic, love it.

But it's another to say, "Oh, and now you're going to be tortured for eternity, the end." That's just a bit spiteful. More than a bit, actually. He's punishing your character for trying to be smart, which is bad form.

Of course, his entire "confront your inner turmoil" scenario is a bit twisted, also, but that's something else.

EDIT: Actually, Crake's point is particularly relevant. The Pit Fiend didn't kill this guy, the PC did; Deathmastery doesn't apply.

[WarKitty]

Alright, now that we've covered the rules advice, time for some practical advice. As a DM, I really understand the temptation. You set out your nice plans and one character comes by and ruins them. You panic and rules-lawyer your way out to an outcome that sticks with your plan because you're not sure what to do otherwise. Pretty sure every new DM has done that.

Have a chat with your DM. Point out that it's not really fun for players to have your planning just suddenly nixed. Say you know it's hard to adjust plans on the fly but it's frustrating for players to not have their actions feel like they make a difference if they go against the plan.

[Albions_Angel]

I love this forum. You can really tell its full of 3.5e players (apart from the fact its a 3.5e forum...)

I mean come on. Its one thing to summon a monster. But look at this.


You have been summoned dance

No, look again. Here, Ill help.


You have been summoned dance

I mean its missing a semi colon (possibly a colon or a full stop) but only a 3.5e player, used to optimizing to the extreme, would not only summon a powerful creature, but also totally ignore all the fluff that surrounds it and just get down to the orders. "Look, I know you are supposed to appear in a flash of lightning, but its pissing it down and Im cold. Can we just hurry this up and get onto the part where I am collecting my gold? This heroic crap is for 5e players."

Also, I think even Red Fel is tiring of it. "Damn it, mortal. I was busy! Fine. FINE. I will answer your question. Can I got now? I have people to torture, empires to topple, things to do. IANAL!"

Love it all :D

[Segev]

I love this forum. You can really tell its full of 3.5e players (apart from the fact its a 3.5e forum...)

I mean come on. Its one thing to summon a monster. But look at this.



No, look again. Here, Ill help.



I mean its missing a semi colon (possibly a colon or a full stop) but only a 3.5e player, used to optimizing to the extreme, would not only summon a powerful creature, but also totally ignore all the fluff that surrounds it and just get down to the orders. "Look, I know you are supposed to appear in a flash of lightning, but its pissing it down and Im cold. Can we just hurry this up and get onto the part where I am collecting my gold? This heroic crap is for 5e players."

Also, I think even Red Fel is tiring of it. "Damn it, mortal. I was busy! Fine. FINE. I will answer your question. Can I got now? I have people to torture, empires to topple, things to do. IANAL!"

Love it all :D
It's not missing a semicolon. He meant he was performing the dance of Red Fel summoning.

[Red Fel]

It's not missing a semicolon. He meant he was performing the dance of Red Fel summoning.

S'trewth. At least, that's how I took it.

Because the last time someone summoned me for the purpose of gadding about the dance floor, I taught them a little two-step I call The Hot-Foot.

You know, I used to have a perfectly relevant title, until some Warlock came along and stole it from me. Think his name was Richard, or something...

[Segev]

S'trewth. At least, that's how I took it.

Because the last time someone summoned me for the purpose of gadding about the dance floor, I taught them a little two-step I call The Hot-Foot.

You know, I used to have a perfectly relevant title, until some Warlock came along and stole it from me. Think his name was Richard, or something...
Now, now, I'm sure that if she was attractive enough, you wouldn't mind dancing for your summoner. :smalltongue: Or with her. After all, class is important when summoning mighty LE entities.

[denthor]

I love this forum. You can really tell its full of 3.5e players (apart from the fact its a 3.5e forum...)

I mean come on. Its one thing to summon a monster. But look at this.



No, look again. Here, Ill help.



I mean its missing a semi colon (possibly a colon or a full stop) but only a 3.5e player, used to optimizing to the extreme, would not only summon a powerful creature, but also totally ignore all the fluff that surrounds it and just get down to the orders. "Look, I know you are supposed to appear in a flash of lightning, but its pissing it down and Im cold. Can we just hurry this up and get onto the part where I am collecting my gold? This heroic crap is for 5e players."

Also, I think even Red Fel is tiring of it. "Damn it, mortal. I was busy! Fine. FINE. I will answer your question. Can I got now? I have people to torture, empires to topple, things to do. IANAL!"

Love it all :D

Hey slow down there I called him a professional.

Did you miss that point of respect?

Red fel to be a proper LE you need an English accent which I am sure you have.

I just find having to ask his opinion and admitting I am not completely capable distasteful.

[Red Fel]

Now, now, I'm sure that if she was attractive enough, you wouldn't mind dancing for your summoner. :smalltongue: Or with her. After all, class is important when summoning mighty LE entities.

Class is always important.

Wizard or get out.


Hey slow down there I called him a professional.

Did you miss that point of respect?

Red fel to be a proper LE you need an English accent which I am sure you have.

I just find having to ask his opinion and admitting I am not completely capable distasteful.

First off, there are over a dozen "English accents." I assume, for instance, that you don't mean a classic Cockney. But I do take your meaning, and I do have an English accent, when needed. Several, in fact. Among others. But let's be fair - there have been some incredibly classy LEs who did without the accent, and did quite fine for themselves.

What it takes isn't an accent. It takes the difference between villain and supervillain. It takes -

... well, you know.

[Segev]

Class is always important.

Wizard or get out.A well-done diplomancer rogue can be equally classy.




But let's be fair - there have been some incredibly classy LEs who did without the accent, and did quite fine for themselves.

What it takes isn't an accent. It takes the difference between villain and supervillain. It takes -

... well, you know.
Case in point for both the accent and non-wizard supervillains.
https://www.nbc.com/sites/nbcunbc/files/files/styles/1080xauto/public/scet/photos/10366/13694/01.jpg?itok=FLytsK4m

Raymond Reddington, in the foreground there, is the guy who is in control in that scene.

[Extra Anchovies]

Alright, now that we've covered the rules advice, time for some practical advice. As a DM, I really understand the temptation. You set out your nice plans and one character comes by and ruins them. You panic and rules-lawyer your way out to an outcome that sticks with your plan because you're not sure what to do otherwise. Pretty sure every new DM has done that.

Have a chat with your DM. Point out that it's not really fun for players to have your planning just suddenly nixed. Say you know it's hard to adjust plans on the fly but it's frustrating for players to not have their actions feel like they make a difference if they go against the plan.

I definitely agree with this. In some ways, the DM is themselves the party's antagonist; not the players' antagonist, mind you, only the player characters'. The DM selects a BBEG (pit fiend), lays out their plans (torture the PCs' loved ones in hell), and then the PCs come in and ruin those plans in variously destructive ways. A big part of DMing, I think, is being able to quickly step back out of the villain's mindset to think about where the story could or should go next. If the party discovers a fatal flaw in what the villain (and the DM) had thought was a flawless plan, that plan should topple like a Jenga tower - but the villain has some sort of backup plan or second line of defense which has to be overcome a different way.

That's sort of the core of what DMing is, in a sense - you get to lay the general framework of a story, and you control most of its characters and pretty much all of its environments, but the other players each control a single principal character and those characters' actions reshape the world and characters they interact with, often in very big ways.


Because the last time someone summoned me for the purpose of gadding about the dance floor, I taught them a little two-step I call The Hot-Foot.

You know, I used to have a perfectly relevant title, until some Warlock came along and stole it from me. Think his name was Richard, or something...

I thought you'd sworn off music after the incident with that Johnny (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi13NxmjqLI) fellow.


Class is always important.

Wizard or get out.

> muh clerics

I'll just be over here, then, with my heavy armor and divine metamagic :smallbiggrin:


Raymond Reddington, in the foreground there, is the guy who is in control in that scene.

Some of the best villains (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/c/ca/Hannibal_Lecter.jpg) are the ones who're in control even when completely (physically) overpowered. It's so effective, I think, because it subverts the near-universal superiority of physical power over mental power in real life (how many people are really willing to die rather than compromise their own values?). Characters with that sort of power - which often takes the form of being the only person who knows a piece of truly necessary information - are often both admirable and despicable, because they won't give in to threats of violence, but they also use their mental power to exploit others and take or demand everything they want, and nothing less. It's a weird sort of psychological capitalism, in a way.

As an aside, one of my favorite behind-the-scenes photographs is from Silence of the Lambs.

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/hopkins-demme-sotl.jpg

That's Anthony Hopkins eating a french fry through Hannibal Lecter's mask.

[Red Fel]

I thought you'd sworn off music after the incident with that Johnny (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi13NxmjqLI) fellow.

You'd think that. Right up until you saw the big whopping residual check I get annually from the profits on that song.

Heads, I win. Tails, I win big.


> muh clerics

I'll just be over here, then, with my heavy armor and divine metamagic :smallbiggrin:

It's a fair cop.

Hard to dance in that heavy armor, though. 'Bout as graceful as a divinely-inspired bull in a heretical china shop.


That's Anthony Hopkins eating a french fry through Hannibal Lecter's mask.

No. That is pure, concentrated classy getting the people who pay his salary to feed him.

That is what power looks like. On-screen and off.

Also, what Odin looks like. Because he also played Odin. A fact which should surprise precisely nobody, because when the All-Father makes public appearances, he's playing Anthony Hopkins playing Odin.

Sir Anthony is the Chuck Norris of classy, is what I'm getting at.

[Khi'Khi]

I definitely agree with this. In some ways, the DM is themselves the party's antagonist; not the players' antagonist, mind you, only the player characters'. The DM selects a BBEG (pit fiend), lays out their plans (torture the PCs' loved ones in hell), and then the PCs come in and ruin those plans in variously destructive ways. A big part of DMing, I think, is being able to quickly step back out of the villain's mindset to think about where the story could or should go next. If the party discovers a fatal flaw in what the villain (and the DM) had thought was a flawless plan, that plan should topple like a Jenga tower - but the villain has some sort of backup plan or second line of defense which has to be overcome a different way.



That's pretty much why I was far less mad at the GM than I might have been. What would a pit fiend do upon getting his evil plans ruined by his victim's quick thinking? Torturing my character out of spite is not outside the realm of likelihood. In fact it's certainly what he would have done even if my character's plan had succeeded and she'd freed her husband's soul. She's still trapped in Hell with an even more pissed off pit fiend, he's going to punish her for depriving him of a victim.

I'm more ticked about having my moment ruined by pedantic rule reading. Which, as many have pointed out should not have been the case.



> muh clerics

I'll just be over here, then, with my heavy armor and divine metamagic :smallbiggrin:
.

Darn right :smallcool:

[Mordaedil]

Come to think of it, it could have all been an illusion to break your character too. Evil fiends are just like that, they love to send their victims into spirals of madness over and over by having the same scene play out time and time again.