Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ancillary 02-22-06, 01:42 PM	The death domain is listed as a core domain. I am very pleased with this change from the deities document. Am I correct to assume that all the dieties in the document that had the domain arbitrarily replaced for them will get it back?
Maesto 02-22-06, 05:18 PM	What about the evil domain? It appears to be core as well...
redgamer 02-22-06, 05:37 PM	I suspect the death domain will be returned to its dieties. This will not happen until the Diety document is reprinted which will not happen until after Winter Fantasy at the earliest.
Itsa_Trika 02-22-06, 10:50 PM	The death domain is listed as a core domain. I am very pleased with this change from the deities document. Am I correct to assume that all the dieties in the document that had the domain arbitrarily replaced for them will get it back? Arbitrary is a pretty big assertion. I was part of the discussion that lead to the replacement of the Death domain with the Repose domain and there wasn't anything arbitrary about it. Arguments were presented, considered, and a decision was made. The Death domain was never made restricted, it was simply replaced as an option for clerics of certain faiths. That hasn't changed with the release of this LGCS.
Objulen 02-24-06, 08:59 PM	Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly are we talking about? My cleric of Wee Jas has had that domain for a while, and I never had to replace it with anything, though I haven't used that character for several months.
kjenks 02-24-06, 10:08 PM	As of the release of the LG Deities document, 2.0, only evil deities offer the Death domain. The domains of Wee Jas are Domination, Inquisition, Law, Magic, Mind, Repose. The Death domain is not an option for your cleric or for any other PC cleric in LG.
Objulen 02-25-06, 11:34 AM	Every single game involves characters killing something, and the death domain is only available from evil gods? Who's half-baked idea was this?
Objulen 02-25-06, 12:02 PM	Arbitrary is a pretty big assertion. I was part of the discussion that lead to the replacement of the Death domain with the Repose domain and there wasn't anything arbitrary about it. Arguments were presented, considered, and a decision was made. What arguments were these? The Death domain was never made restricted, it was simply replaced as an option for clerics of certain faiths. That hasn't changed with the release of this LGCS. How is it not restricting the domain if no PC in the game can choose a god with the death domain? That would be the conclusion reached by this statement from kjenks, "As of the release of the LG Deities document, 2.0, only evil deities offer the Death domain."
Mommy was an Orc 02-25-06, 12:09 PM	How is it not restricting the domain if no PC in the game can choose a god with the death domain? That would be the conclusion reached by this statement from kjenks, "As of the release of the LG Deities document, 2.0, only evil deities offer the Death domain." Not quite. Restricting means that no one, not even NPCs can take something. No psionic NPCs as an example. There can be NPC clerics of Nerull with the Death Domain as an example.
Mommy was an Orc 02-25-06, 12:16 PM	There's a slight difference in intent. Repose Deities explain the role of death in the world, how it is part of the natural order of things. Death Deities generally revel in causing death for no reason. Wee Jas should have rituals to deal with plague victims, some of which are ruthless in nature; Nerull has rituals to cause plagues... Every single game involves characters killing something, and the death domain is only available from evil gods?
Objulen 02-25-06, 12:20 PM	Not quite. Restricting means that no one, not even NPCs can take something. No psionic NPCs as an example. There can be NPC clerics of Nerull with the Death Domain as an example. So it's basically put on the "NPC only list". Which, as far as I'm concerned (since, from a practical stand-point of what I can use) is the same thing. Given the recent banning of Polymorph (I haven't seen anything official, but has this reached LG? In any event, the Master Transmogriphist is NPC only), the rather hard nerfing of the Master of Many Forms (who can not longer use items in various shapes that absolutely need them, like giant shapes), and this, it seems that characters I'd like to play are rapidly being removed from the game, which calls into serious question whether or not I'd want to play any RPGA associated game (For example, in Mark of Heroes, you have to use an action card just to play a psionic character, and it's a psionic setting!).
Objulen 02-25-06, 12:29 PM	There's a slight difference in intent. Repose Deities explain the role of death in the world, how it is part of the natural order of things. Death Deities generally revel in causing death for no reason. Which we base on what? First, there's really nothing in the death domain that denotes reveling in death for no reason -- the death domain is tied to more active aspects of death than the repose domain, but given what the average LG modual consists of, how can anyone possibly make the argument that the death domain wouldn't be tied to good characters? There's a difference between dealing out death and taking satisfaction from it. Wee Jas should have rituals to deal with plague victims, some of which are ruthless in nature; Nerull has rituals to cause plagues... Wee Jas also is a big god for non-evil necromancers, who raise undead, as well, and one would imagine that her Mystic Theurges are True Necromancers, since she gives the Death domain. Honestly, it's really getting rediculous, fast. Why bother with an evil domain if the Death domain is going to be pasted as evil? The Repose domain grants the same special ability, the only difference is that it has fewer offensive spells. It makes about as much sense as deathless. "Death is creepy, so we are going to make it eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil, but we need a white-washed version". :mad: I guess instead of "making you dead", PC's will, from now on, "repose the opposition". :rolleyes:
Mommy was an Orc 02-25-06, 12:36 PM	Polymorph is still legal, though I probably wouldn't start a build with it in mind - I strongly suspect that PHB II is going to rewrite the rules and they're just setting things up for that - errata corrects things, it can't make new rules up. But how does the Death domain not being an option really affect you that much? 3 of the spells on the list are Evil and the Repose domain has the exact same power...and from a roleplaying view, you should want the Repose domain as you're not an evil character(if you're worshipping death) Given the recent banning of Polymorph (I haven't seen anything official, but has this reached LG? In any event, the Master Transmogriphist is NPC only), the rather hard nerfing of the Master of Many Forms (who can not longer use items in various shapes that absolutely need them, like giant shapes), and this, it seems that characters I'd like to play are rapidly being removed from the game, which calls into serious question whether or not I'd want to play any RPGA associated game (For example, in Mark of Heroes, you have to use an action card just to play a psionic character, and it's a psionic setting!).
Objulen 02-25-06, 12:47 PM	Polymorph is still legal, though I probably wouldn't start a build with it in mind - I strongly suspect that PHB II is going to rewrite the rules and they're just setting things up for that - errata corrects things, it can't make new rules up. Quite true. Another win for me. :/ But how does the Death domain not being an option really affect you that much? 3 of the spells on the list are Evil and the Repose domain has the exact same power...and from a roleplaying view, you should want the Repose domain as you're not an evil character(if you're worshipping death) Because it doens't make sense, I liked having the death domain, and it bothers me when things start turning into The Book of Exalted Deeds, which is the most two-faced supplement in existance (poisons, diseases, assassins, and undead are evil, but ravages, afflicitions, slayers of domiel, and deathless are good!). I'm half expecting to see a "True Deathless-mancer" or some such foolishness next. As for an RP perspective, you are making alot of assumptions. My character with the death domain didn't have any problems with worshipping death as part of both the natural order of life in the world and as an instrument of justice against the wicked before it the death domain all of the sudden became eeeeeeeeevil by someone's fiat, of which I didn't have a single word of involvement in, and the aspect of death as part of the natural way of things was pulled out of the Death domain because Osiris thought it was creepy (along with undead -- he just uses Deathless), all of which really starts bothering me since I don't need help developing the world-view of my characters. There was no need for the Repose domain for Wee Jas, or any other non-evil death god, back in 3.0 and 3.5. Why is there a need for it now?
Mommy was an Orc 02-25-06, 12:59 PM	Because it doens't make sense, I liked having the death domain, and it bothers me when things start turning into The Book of Exalted Deeds. There was no need for the Repose domain for Wee Jas, or any other non-evil death god, back in 3.0 and 3.5. Why is there a need for it now? Because Death domain sucks for characters in a game where committing evil acts gets your character taken away...4 of the spells are evil acts as per 3.5 PHB. The 1st level spell is useless for most of the game. That leaves 3 Domain slots that anyone in a Living Greyhawk game can cast on a regular basis - and all of them can be cast by a Cleric with the Repose Domain. Repose should probably be named Death and Death named Murder or Killer or something similar. But that's not how it currently works.
kjenks 02-25-06, 02:59 PM	There are several other domains that are only assigned to evil deities, such as the Tyranny domain.
Objulen 02-25-06, 04:56 PM	Because Death domain sucks for characters in a game where committing evil acts gets your character taken away Given that you can a) steal from people to make a living and b) rebuke undead, which is defined as an evil act, is still accessable to PCs, this isn't a valid argument. Not only is casting spells with the evil descriptor never actually stated as being an evil act, doing evil deeds is not enough to become evil, depending on the deed. The only reason that this issue would come up as long as the character acted in the generally heroic manner is if someone is intentially trying to screw a character. The level 1 spell of the repose domain, Deathwatch, is also an evil spell. ...4 of the spells are evil acts as per 3.5 PHB. Again, given that rebuke undead, which is an evil act according to the PHB, is available to players, and given that it doesn't say that casting spells with the evil descriptor is an evil act in the PHB, and that neutral characters can commit evil acts without becoming evil, depending on the act in question (like stealing people's money off the street with slight of hand), then this argument really has no validity. Also, see the comments on Deathwatch. The 1st level spell is useless for most of the game. 1) It's a first level spell 2) It's useful when you get it 3) You have another domain to cast a 1st level spell from (the magic domain is pretty nice). 4) Deathwatch isn't incredibly useful as you level up either. That leaves 3 Domain slots that anyone in a Living Greyhawk game can cast on a regular basis - and all of them can be cast by a Cleric with the Repose Domain. Actually, there are 9 domain slots that anyone in Living Greyhawk can cast on a regular basis as long as the character isn't hurting people and otherwise actually being a villain. Repose should probably be named Death and Death named Murder or Killer or something similar. But that's not how it currently works. Yes, because that would be a great improvement. :/ That and animating the dead doen't fit anywhere in a "Murder" or "Killer" domain. You would just be making a new domain. There are several other domains that are only assigned to evil deities, such as the Tyranny domain. First, tyranny is pretty evil in its definition. Death is not, and every alignment uses death in a way consistant with its alignment.
Objulen 02-25-06, 05:05 PM	Before we get into a debate of what qualifies for a shift to the evil alignment, I'll let the SRD do the talking for me: Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Since a)Rebuking Undead and b) Casting spells with the evil descriptor does not involve "hurting, oppressing, and killing others", nor does it demonstrate a lack of any "compunctions against killing the innocent", there is no reason why creating undead or using rebuke undead would cause a character's alignment to shift to evil.
kjenks 02-25-06, 05:25 PM	Well, now we have a conflict. The LG Deities document 2.0 does not give Wee Jas the Death domain, but LGCS 5 does, on page 11.
kjenks 02-25-06, 07:42 PM	There are a few other domains listed as Core in LGCS 5 that are not granted by any LG deity usable by PCs, including Blackwater, Evil, Hunger, Ocean, Pestilence, Sand, Seafolk, Storm, Thirst, Tyranny. (The Sand domain is usable by Bright Sands clerics.)
Objulen 02-25-06, 09:14 PM	There are a few other domains listed as Core in LGCS 5 that are not granted by any LG deity usable by PCs, including Blackwater, Evil, Hunger, Ocean, Pestilence, Sand, Seafolk, Storm, Thirst, Tyranny. (The Sand domain is usable by Bright Sands clerics.) How many of those involved revisions to existing deities? Evil, Pestilence, and Tyranny make sense. Thirst and Hunger probably does as well, given that I can't see a particularly good way to use that, and if I'm not mistaken evil deities have that anyway. As for Blackwater, Ocean, Sand, Seafolk, and Storm, why those are npc only, I don't know, except for perhaps they are only given to evil deities in LG, or that aquatic deities aren't available. Compare this to death, which is both a natural part of the world, and used by everyone, and is listed as a domain for a core, non-evil, PHB deity.
Simpi 02-26-06, 02:32 AM	Compare this to death, which is both a natural part of the world, and used by everyone, and is listed as a domain for a core, non-evil, PHB deity. Another case of dumping down for some morality issue here I quess. Which does not make sense. Both death & Repose offer the same special ability and no spell in death domain is unique, so people who wish to animate dead, etc. (I know people who do) can still do it within the rule. There is also another issue. Removing death domain from players means that in case of Wee Jas clerics, your best domain and special ability is taken away from core rules (PHB), forcing you to take not-so-good domains (Out of core domains Magic & Death are the best for Wee Jas clerics), unless you buy Sandstorm*. I know details of Repose domain are in Kjenks spell list but it would be fair to actually print the thing in LGCS for those who don't know about it. S.H, the guy from Naerie *of course this only applies if you run into DM who actually wants you to have the book on hand or does not have domain information.
Objulen 02-26-06, 10:01 AM	You can also look up the details of the Repose domain on the SRD.
Arvagor 02-26-06, 01:12 PM	There are a few other domains listed as Core in LGCS 5 that are not granted by any LG deity usable by PCs, including Blackwater, Evil, Hunger, Ocean, Pestilence, Sand, Seafolk, Storm, Thirst, Tyranny. (The Sand domain is usable by Bright Sands clerics.) ... As is the 'Thirst' domain, specifically for Bright Sands PCs of Beory, Geshtai, Llerg, or Vathris.
Objulen 02-26-06, 01:21 PM	... As is the 'Thirst' domain, specifically for Bright Sands PCs of Beory, Geshtai, Llerg, or Vathris. Were these edited? In any event, it still doesn't change the fact that domains are being altered because they are creepy or unplesent, and some are by somewhat extreme stretches. The Thirst domain isn't a very happy one, I'd imagine, but then again, neither is Horrid Wilting, and it doesn't have the evil descriptor. Death is even more general, and the "Repose" domain sounds like a disney-esk sanitized domain for people who find a "death" domain uncomfortable or creepy. They even grant the same ability, and neither have access to exclusive spells. It's the same sort of junk that made the BoED such a laughing stock. Seriously, what sort of symantics-game was played to justify this? "Well, death, which includes all forms of death in its definition, has some things that aren't pretty. Repose sounds so much more nice, and since we can't have any PCs with anything that isn't nice, we are going to change any non-evil god's death domain to the repose domain, because only evil things like death, but 'repose' sounds like a vacation to the Bahamas."
Mortepierre 02-26-06, 04:53 PM	Let's not speculate too much about this, folks. Once WF is over, the Circle will most likely return to editing the LGCS 5.0 to provide us with a 5.1 (not to mention the long-awaited Deities document 2.1). I was one of the first to rant about the Polymorph spell being probably restricted soon (as it has been in MoH) but I see now I should simply have been patient instead of jumping to conclusions. Let's wait for 5.1. When it's out, there will still be plenty of time to rant then :P
Arvagor 02-26-06, 06:34 PM	Were these edited?I'm not sure what you're asking? I was simply pointing out that the Thirst domain is one that is a valid choice for Bright Sands PCs. In any event, it still doesn't change the fact that domains are being altered because they are creepy or unplesent, and some are by somewhat extreme stretches. The Thirst domain isn't a very happy one, I'd imagine, but then again, neither is Horrid Wilting, and it doesn't have the evil descriptor.I don't see it as a 'Disney'-fication, so much as a recognition that that are multiple aspects to many of these things that we don't generally think about... Take the Greeks for example... They had, in fact two gods of war: Athena, who represented the noble aspects of war, i.e., the wisdom of stratgey and tactics; and Ares, who represented the more savage aspects of battle, war for the sake of war, slaughter, the fury of battle, etc. Or to use your example of the Death domain -- a serial killer would have the Death domain, while a funeral director would have the Repose domain. To "edit" the deities and re-assign them new domains makes complete sense to me, and simply represents the evolution of the game, not to mention in Wee Jas's case, returning to her the proper aspect of death that she used to have before 3rd edition (I mean, c'mon; do you really expect that the aspects of Death represented by Wee Jas are the same as those from Nerull???)
Itsa_Trika 02-26-06, 07:17 PM	Another case of dumping down for some morality issue here I guess. You would guess incorrectly. One of the reasons the Deities Document took so long to be released (and why it's taken so long to be revised since then) was because of the intent by the author to make the document as respectful to original canon as possible, from the early supplements all the way to the LGG. The gods of Greyhawk have always been a staple to the setting, and it would have been a disservice to the campaign as a whole to ignore what has gone before. Wee Jas is not a goddess of necromancers, but one who adopted her role as a death goddess to help the Suel people find solace in the afterlife after the Rain of Colorless Fire and the Invoked Devistation drove the Suel and Bakluni out of their empires. To then give her a domain the dominant feature of which is raising undead did not fit the intent of the god. The repose domain, the act of laying the dead to rest, is a much better fit. In fact, it was a general concensus that Repose fit better. The discussion focused mainly on the impact of replacing a core domain with a supplemental domain. Once the domain was posted on the WotC site as a preview of Sandstorm (so that players weren't required to buy the book for the single domain), that issue was resolved.
Objulen 02-27-06, 07:52 AM	I'm not sure what you're asking? I was simply pointing out that the Thirst domain is one that is a valid choice for Bright Sands PCs. My question was whether or not any non-eivl deities with the thirst domain had their domains edited. I don't see it as a 'Disney'-fication, so much as a recognition that that are multiple aspects to many of these things that we don't generally think about... Take the Greeks for example... They had, in fact two gods of war: Athena, who represented the noble aspects of war, i.e., the wisdom of stratgey and tactics; and Ares, who represented the more savage aspects of battle, war for the sake of war, slaughter, the fury of battle, etc. That might make sense if it was needed to begin with, given that Ares represented a more emotional side to war, with Athena the intellectual side. Death, however, is just that -- death. It has multiple facets, and one of the upshots of this was that it allowed for many great roleplaying opportunities. A character with the death domain could explore death (which has been a subject of quite some speculation for the history of humanity) in all its forms, good and bad, active and passive through the lense of her/his alignment and outlook. That a terrible cleric of Nerull or a LG cleric of Wee Jas could share a domain (o, the horror!) simply went to show that death was more complicated than chopping it up into composite domains that were "good" and "bad". Or to use your example of the Death domain -- a serial killer would have the Death domain, while a funeral director would have the Repose domain. To "edit" the deities and re-assign them new domains makes complete sense to me, and simply represents the evolution of the game, not to mention in Wee Jas's case, returning to her the proper aspect of death that she used to have before 3rd edition (I mean, c'mon; do you really expect that the aspects of Death represented by Wee Jas are the same as those from Nerull???) Quite frankly, yes. Death is death, and the death domain includes all apects, not just the aspects that people would prefer villains to have. To say that a serial killer would have the death domain is be guilty of a grevious misuse of the term. If that's what you want, change it to the "Murder" domain, but keeping it as the Death domain is one the so-very stereotypical "death is creepy" elements of old D&D that turned me away from the setting.
Objulen 02-27-06, 07:56 AM	You would guess incorrectly. One of the reasons the Deities Document took so long to be released (and why it's taken so long to be revised since then) was because of the intent by the author to make the document as respectful to original canon as possible, from the early supplements all the way to the LGG. The gods of Greyhawk have always been a staple to the setting, and it would have been a disservice to the campaign as a whole to ignore what has gone before. I certain that there are people who liked Greyhawk from those days that are very pleased by this. Then there are people who didn't, and thought the change was good. How many of them were there to make arguments? Wee Jas is not a goddess of necromancers, but one who adopted her role as a death goddess to help the Suel people find solace in the afterlife after the Rain of Colorless Fire and the Invoked Devistation drove the Suel and Bakluni out of their empires. So what? Her power was expanded from 2e to 3e. Is that a bad thing? The story line progressed. Further Wee Jas, I'd imagine, was intentionall given the death domain by Wizards because they were making her a god of necromancers for non-evil necromantic characters -- is that such a horror? No necromantic character in the Libris Mortis has an alignment requirement of "evil". And this is a way of dumping down for some morality, if indirectly. Early editions of the game did that quite a bit, and the change in 3e was to move away from that, which is a good thing IMO. It is also the end result of changing all non-evil gods to the "repose" domain instead of the "death" domain, which clearly delinates where "death" stands in the alignment spectrum. The repose domain was created because Osiris and Anubis are good death gods, and since undead are creepy, they must be evil, and we can't have good gods doing anything evil (and anyone who tries to argue that undead are evil will be kindly refered to the BoED, with deathless, the 'good unead' -- evil gods of death are supposed to make undead, while good ones make deathless), inspite of whatever pardaxical conundrums it might create. To then give her a domain the dominant feature of which is raising undead did not fit the intent of the god. The repose domain, the act of laying the dead to rest, is a much better fit. In fact, it was a general concensus that Repose fit better. The discussion focused mainly on the impact of replacing a core domain with a supplemental domain. Once the domain was posted on the WotC site as a preview of Sandstorm (so that players weren't required to buy the book for the single domain), that issue was resolved. Wee Jas, I'm assuming, was always a goddess of magic. Then she became a goddess of death. Mixing the two, and you get necromancy. Her followers would probably make the leap, even with something like the "repose" domain, and it follows that she would still be a patron of non-evil necromancers, so that hasn't changed. Wee Jas became a goddes of death and that includes "repose". Laying the dead to rest is as much a part of the death domain, and the clerics of Wee Jas' function, as it is under the "repose" domain. Wee Jas, however, also has a "dark side", which is why she's LN and not LG. Animating undead perfectly fits how she is portrayed. Edit: Grammar errors, a few revisions.
Ancillary 02-27-06, 11:28 PM	Man, I come back from MegaCon and find people replied to my post. I am glad this subject interests so many people. When I chose the word arbitrary, I think it was a good choice. If I concede to your arguement that Wee-Jas is better fit to repose, there is still the other neutral dieties that had the swap. Surely repose could not be a better fit for all of them. And since animate dead is still perfectly legal in LG, if used in a responsible way, taking away the death domain restricted characters who wished to theme there characters in this way. Taking away the death domain entirely would only make since if animating undead became npc-only. In general, the LG people have done a good job with the very hard task of restricting stuff. With the return of the death domain I do not think that they have ever made a decision that I strongly disagreed with. (Sure I was making a spellsword who was going to capitalize on wraithstrike/leap attack combo and it got taken away right before I got to cast second level spells for the first time. But at the same time my higher levels are super pleased not to be fighting wraithstriking dragons anymore.)
Samwise 02-28-06, 11:22 AM	So what? Her power was expanded from 2e to 3e. Is that a bad thing? The story line progressed. Further Wee Jas, I'd imagine, was intentionall given the death domain by Wizards because they were making her a god of necromancers for non-evil necromantic characters -- is that such a horror? No necromantic character in the Libris Mortis has an alignment requirement of "evil". It is a bad thing because it changes a significant amount of the nature of the deity as presented previously. This also happened with Cuthbert when he was made a 3E core deity, and with Heironeous and his gratuitous weapon change. The reasons given for those were also rather weak. So yes, it is a pretty hefty "horror" for those who care about background consistency.
Objulen 02-28-06, 01:09 PM	It is a bad thing because it changes a significant amount of the nature of the deity as presented previously. This also happened with Cuthbert when he was made a 3E core deity, and with Heironeous and his gratuitous weapon change. The reasons given for those were also rather weak. So yes, it is a pretty hefty "horror" for those who care about background consistency. And tell me, were St. Cuthbert or Heironeous edited to be more in-line with their 2e Greyhawk incarnation that had any impact on a character made from the PHB? The answer for that would be "no". Heironus had the axe added to his favored weapon's list, and he didn't have the long sword removed. No one was impacted in a meaningful way. It's also a bad argument when Heironus was given a line saying, "he recently has been promoting the useage of the longsword in order to appeal to common soldiers as well as paladins and leaders." Why isn't there a line that says, "After Wee Jas became known for escorting the dead of Suel to the afterlife, many non-evil necromancers turned their worship to her instead of Boccob, gradually granting her the death domain, especially after necromancers worshipping Wee Jas used skeletons and zombies to fortify her temples." While it may make sense for Wee Jas to have the repose domain for a 2e point of view, the argument that this was to make the game more in-line with 2e is a rather large stretch when every single non-evil god with the death domain had it replaced with the repose domain. Quite simply, over time, her association with death grew to the point where she gained the death domain. It happens, since gods are inherently sympathetic beings, and since Wee Jas is a goddess of magic, and the most symapthetic deity for non-evil necromancers, it makes perfect sense that her domain would be death. Frankly, this is 3e, not 2e. Players from 2e Greyhawk may not like some of the changes to the gods, but other people did, for one, and secondly, there are players in this game who never played 2e, like me for reasons exactly this, because whatever anyone might say, giving all non-evil deities the "repose" domain instead of the "death" domain was exactly the sort of Disney-fication (and with a decision to remove the death domain from all non-evil deities, that what it is, intended or not) that drove some players away from the setting in the first place to play games with either different or fewer restrictions on character concepts, like Dark Sun and Planescape. And quite frankly, how many more changes like this can players expect from the Circle? I don't have a problem with shifting St. Cuthbert's alignment to LG because it doesn't change his concept, character's concepts, or impact existing character's in any meaningful way -- he couldn't have evil followers in 3e, so this change really did nothing, from a mechanical point of view, a story point of view, etc. How many more times is the setting, classes, and ultimately, player characters, going to be changed in a negative way by decisions that have no basis on game balance? However, the change of all non-evil deities' death domain to the repose domain alters characters, sets up an obvious statement on the alignment of death in the game, and directly alters character concepts. Players of character who made necromantic characters, but especially divine casters, who worshipped gods of the death domain, have lost their deities for a very large extent, since as was stated above "Wee-Jas is not a god of necromancers". This wouldn't be a problem if it was optional, or someone's in-house game, but this is a multinational gaming environment. Altering 3e materials that changes character mechanics and character concepts like this because of a desire from a certain percentage of the population of the game wants to go back to 2e is an incredibly inconsiderate decision, especially when you don't leave any room for players to maintain their character concepts.
Samwise 02-28-06, 02:29 PM	And tell me, were St. Cuthbert or Heironeous edited to be more in-line with their 2e Greyhawk incarnation that had any impact on a character made from the PHB? The answer for that would be "no". Heironus had the axe added to his favored weapon's list, and he didn't have the long sword removed. No one was impacted in a meaningful way. But we are talking about characters in the LG Campaign, not merely generic PHB characters for any campaign. So the answer for that would be "yes!" It's also a bad argument when Heironus was given a line saying, "he recently has been promoting the useage of the longsword in order to appeal to common soldiers as well as paladins and leaders." Why isn't there a line that says, "After Wee Jas became known for escorting the dead of Suel to the afterlife, many non-evil necromancers turned their worship to her instead of Boccob, gradually granting her the death domain, especially after necromancers worshipping Wee Jas used skeletons and zombies to fortify her temples." Except that line was an ex post facto addition to cover for a change that was originally based on "Well the weapon in the DMG is a holy sword, so paladins should always use sword, and so should their deity." Way weak. As for Wee Jas, the problem is that absolutely contradicts previous versions that said Wee Jas rejected the use of undead, requiring a commune before they could be controlled (instead of destroyed). While it may make sense for Wee Jas to have the repose domain for a 2e point of view, the argument that this was to make the game more in-line with 2e is a rather large stretch when every single non-evil god with the death domain had it replaced with the repose domain. Quite simply, over time, her association with death grew to the point where she gained the death domain. It happens, since gods are inherently sympathetic beings, and since Wee Jas is a goddess of magic, and the most symapthetic deity for non-evil necromancers, it makes perfect sense that her domain would be death. Maybe that is because the animate dead and create undead spells are Evil, as per the rules. That makes the repose domain absolutely more appropriate than the death domain, within the framework of the rules. Indeed, if it comes down to making revisionism self-justifying, the fact that the repose domain wasn't created for the core rules can stand as evidence that while all death-related dieties had the death domain only because there was no other option. Now that the system can handle it, they should "obviously" be changed. Frankly, this is 3e, not 2e. Players from 2e Greyhawk may not like some of the changes to the gods, but other people did, for one, and secondly, there are players in this game who never played 2e, like me for reasons exactly this, because whatever anyone might say, giving all non-evil deities the "repose" domain instead of the "death" domain was exactly the sort of Disney-fication (and with a decision to remove the death domain from all non-evil deities, that what it is, intended or not) that drove some players away from the setting in the first place to play games with either different or fewer restrictions on character concepts, like Dark Sun and Planescape. And of course you would be wrong. Indeed, another of the complaints about the changes was shifting Pholtus to LG instead of LN, as Pholtus did have an established LE branch of his faith in FtA. That is no longer possible. And apparently you missed that Planescape eventually succumbed to that "Disney-fication", denying that any deities of good would ever fight each other openly. (Something I strenously advocated against during PS list discussions to no avail.) Oh, and Wee Jas is not a non-evil deity. Her home plane is Acheron, a lower plane. So while she isn't an arch-devil, she is certainly no archon, or even a fellow traveller of the modrons. Finally, whatever the edition of the rules, it is still the same setting. If so much background is to be casually dismissed just to accommodate the random non-evil necromancer player who aspires to the true necromancer prestige class, why even bother having this be Living Greyhawk? We could be playing anything at that rate.
Objulen 02-28-06, 08:32 PM	But we are talking about characters in the LG Campaign, not merely generic PHB characters for any campaign. So the answer for that would be "yes!" Which is also the default campaign for D&D, for which there is material for in 3e, that being the PHB, the Complete series, and pretty much all other materials, which defaults to Greyhawk unless stated otherwise. So the answer should still be "no", since what you are making by going against the default cannon is not "Living Greyhawk", but "Greyhawk From the Past". Except that line was an ex post facto addition to cover for a change that was originally based on "Well the weapon in the DMG is a holy sword, so paladins should always use sword, and so should their deity." Way weak. The point being that it was a change that went agianst the origional 2e material for 3e reasons, i.e. that paladins should use swords. And it may be weak, but I didn't see this accomidation stripped from paladins or the point of view that paladins should always use holy swords, so that's a moot point. As for Wee Jas, the problem is that absolutely contradicts previous versions that said Wee Jas rejected the use of undead, requiring a commune before they could be controlled (instead of destroyed). It's still a) going against established Wizard canon, since she obviously chaged her views, b) there's already partial accomidation for this in the Deities 2.0 list with the paragraph that says that communion is only needed to command chaotic undead, and c) it also doesn't change the fact that Heironeus kept the long sword despite not having it in 2e, and the reason for why this change was made was edited into his description. There is no difficulty in similarly ammending Wee Jas within the current frame work of Deities 2.0 to justify the death domain over the repose domain, since it already is half-way there. After several communions on the matter, she established her guidelines on raising the dead and controling the undead (one would also assume creating the undead). It is quite believeable that, since she has evil followers, she would have no problem with her followers creating and commanding lawful undead creatures like wights, mummies (who would make perfect sense for the clerics of Wee Jas as a Tomb Warden from Libris Mortis), spectres, and wraiths. Maybe that is because the animate dead and create undead spells are Evil, as per the rules. That makes the repose domain absolutely more appropriate than the death domain, within the framework of the rules. First, skeletons and zombies were neutral in 3.0. They are mindless, so their alignment is a result of the "undead are eeeeeevil" (in the voice of Dr. Evil) syndrom. Secondly Wee Jas has lawful evil clerics! She doesn't care if her followers are good, neutral, or evil so much as if they are lawful. She abducts random creatures from the planes and submits them to trials of increasing difficulty until they fail, with lethal consequences from my understanding. She's not the nicest deity in the face of the multiverse. She is, however, not evil, and as such makes a perfect platform for necromancers, who don't have to be evil. There is no necromantic class I've seen that has a requirement of evil, only "non-good". LG allows for such flaws in their characters too a degree (you can steal for a living), which, frankly, makes for more interesting characters than having a plethora of characters who do nothing but good 24/7. Indeed, if it comes down to making revisionism self-justifying, the fact that the repose domain wasn't created for the core rules can stand as evidence that while all death-related dieties had the death domain only because there was no other option. Now that the system can handle it, they should "obviously" be changed. Maybe for some, but frankly, the repose domain was created because Osiris and Anubis are good, and Good Deities Don't Like Undead. It is an option that might make sense for some gods in LG, such as the dragon death god (whose name I can't remember) who never takes a hand in anything, simply watching the cycle of life and death, but not for Wee Jas, given that she is a goddess of magic, and that all her clerics rebuke undead instead of turning them. Also, if Wizards intended to change Wee Jas, why haven't they done something by now? Surely there's been enough time to make an errata, or post something somewhere on the topic that Wee Jas really should have this domain. And of course you would be wrong. Indeed, another of the complaints about the changes was shifting Pholtus to LG instead of LN, as Pholtus did have an established LE branch of his faith in FtA. That is no longer possible. What sort of mechanical change did this inflict on player characters in LG, who can't play evil characters anyway? And where did Pholtus appear in 3e? I don't remember him from Deities and Demigods or Complete Divine. I can see where it would mess up some character concepts, which IMO is a valid reason for gripes. And no, I wouldn't be wrong. I don't have a problem with not being able to play a villain. What bothers me is when things I'd like to use get prohibited because they aren't heoric enough according to some peopel, and what I have a problem with is when I can't even make a character I want to play under the core PHB class with a core PHB god and core PHB rules because of a desire to turn back the clock and probably an underlying sentiment to sanatize the setting. And apparently you missed that Planescape eventually succumbed to that "Disney-fication", denying that any deities of good would ever fight each other openly. (Something I strenously advocated against during PS list discussions to no avail.) No, I didn't miss it, but that's a small drop in the bucket compared to other things that can happen in the setting. Angels fall, demons rise, and floating skulls help out with terrible teath and witty banter. The "good gods never fight" line was pretty cheesey, but given other things that happened in the setting (heck, the Yugoloths gave fiends teleportation from a fallen angel), the sanitization was nothing compared to what Greyhawk recieved. Oh, and Wee Jas is not a non-evil deity. Her home plane is Acheron, a lower plane. So while she isn't an arch-devil, she is certainly no archon, or even a fellow traveller of the modrons. It's hard to say that one god isn't evil, but not 'happy' as evidence that Greyhawk isn't being santized when two have already had their alignments shifted closer from neutral to good and every non-evil deity with the death domain was given the repose domain. The real question here is "when is this going to change?" Finally, whatever the edition of the rules, it is still the same setting. That is a very contradictory statement. It is the same setting in 3e that it was in 2e. Wizards owns the setting, and they changed it between editions, just like almost all games I know of. And these changes are minor things, fluff-wise amounting to some details about some deities. Trying to pass it off as breaking the setting is like trying to say that shooting an aircraft carrier with a .22 is going to sink it, especially when some effort has already been taken to accomidate the changes. If so much background is to be casually dismissed just to accommodate the random non-evil necromancer player who aspires to the true necromancer prestige class, why even bother having this be Living Greyhawk? We could be playing anything at that rate. What background has to be dismissed to accomidate the odd random non-evil necromancer player who aspires to the true necro PrC? One god has a minor development in her perspectives and policies from 2e to 3e that makes as much, if not more, sense than the "development" of Heironeous branching out to swords to make the "paladins must use swords" crowd happy, was made by the company that owns the setting (Wizards), and thus is as core as it gets. It's also somewhat painfully obvious that Wizards made the change because they wanted this support for non-evil necromancers. There's already a god of magic, who can accept all followers. There's already a death god, who's evil. Why, out of the around 200 some-odd gods from Greyhawk, include Wee Jas, who overlaps with Boccob and Nerull from the PHB, if not to support this character type? And as for accomidating players, what's wrong with that? The offical record (i.e. Wizards) has True Necromancers, Palemasters, Dread Necromancers, and Masters of Shrouds (and some others, like Black Flame Zealot) as requiring "any nongood", which means that, for the default setting, i.e. Greyhawk 3e, this applies. The reason why these classes aren't allowed is because they aren't heroic enough, which personally, should be like alcohol consumption -- upto the individual. If the majority of players don't think that these classes and PrCs are heroic enough, then the majority of people won't play them, while a few non-evil individuals will exist, which is what Wizards intended to allow with these classes. If not, then alot more players are happy. In the end, it's no different than opening up the Radiant Servant of Pelor, Shining Blade of Heironeus, Stormlord, and Temple Raider to PCs (in the case of Stormlords) or other PCs than allowed by the base PrC. Accomidating players is a good thing.
Samwise 02-28-06, 09:11 PM	So the answer should still be "no", since what you are making by going against the default cannon is not "Living Greyhawk", but "Greyhawk From the Past". The name Greyhawk is from the past. That means everything that goes with Greyhawk from the past comes forward. That was the whole point of using Greyhawk, to take advantage of that body of material. Doing otherwise would be like suggesting that Xen'drik Campaigns completely ignore everything previously published for Eberron. That would be a waste of material, and of the name factor. The point being that it was a change that went agianst the origional 2e material for 3e reasons, i.e. that paladins should use swords. No, it went against a flavor change that followers of Heironeous should use axes, and did so for no useful reason. And it may be weak, but I didn't see this accomidation stripped from paladins or the point of view that paladins should always use holy swords, so that's a moot point. What it stripped was campaign flavor. It's still a) going against established Wizard canon, since she obviously chaged her views, You mean the way making her a patron of necromancers went against established Wizard's canon, obviously changing her views. Hardly a justification. First, skeletons and zombies were neutral in 3.0. They are mindless, so their alignment is a result of the "undead are eeeeeevil" (in the voice of Dr. Evil) syndrom. They were also neutral in AD&D. So their alignment is the result of "least common denominator intelligence" reasoning, the same as paladins with swords, and Cuthbert being too like Heironeous. All of which are the core of my arguments against numerous design changes. Secondly Wee Jas has lawful evil clerics! Just as Good isn't Stupid, so Evil doesn't have to be depraved. You can have an Evil deity who actually doesn't like dead things swarming all over the place. Also, if Wizards intended to change Wee Jas, why haven't they done something by now? Surely there's been enough time to make an errata, or post something somewhere on the topic that Wee Jas really should have this domain. Why does it have to be changed by Wizards? A specific campaign is different from generic core rules. Wizards doesn't have to change anything. And no, I wouldn't be wrong. You are wrong about those things you suggested about AD&D (1st and 2nd ed, since Greyhawk has been around from 1st), and what the various changes were. That is a very contradictory statement. It is the same setting in 3e that it was in 2e. Not in the least. The setting has evolved dramatically. Wander down to the Greyhawk forum and you can read some views on just how much it has changed. What background has to be dismissed to accomidate the odd random non-evil necromancer player who aspires to the true necro PrC? That Wee Jas opposed the creation of undead. That isn't a minor development, it is a major one. If you want to be a true necromancer, find another deity to sponsor you. Why, out of the around 200 some-odd gods from Greyhawk, include Wee Jas, who overlaps with Boccob and Nerull from the PHB, if not to support this character type? Haven't you ever seen her picture? :P And as for accomidating players, what's wrong with that? . . . Accomidating players is a good thing. Because creating swarms of dead things to serve you isn't a heroic archetype. The Living Greyhawk campaign is about being a hero. Not an anti-hero. Not a protagonist. A hero. Bold and up front, reluctant, noble, farmboy, or whatever in-between. But not being overtly evil and just fighting against evil, or a callous mercenary who just wants to get paid, or whatever else that isn't being a hero. Being a hero. Accomodating non-heroic archetypes in such a campaign is a diminishment of that stated purpose, and a loss of the spirit of the campaign. Too much such accommodating has been done. I opposed it then, I oppose it now.
Objulen 02-28-06, 10:14 PM	The name Greyhawk is from the past. That means everything that goes with Greyhawk from the past comes forward. That was the whole point of using Greyhawk, to take advantage of that body of material. Doing otherwise would be like suggesting that Xen'drik Campaigns completely ignore everything previously published for Eberron. That would be a waste of material, and of the name factor. It means this. However, all campaign settings I know of also change over time. Dark Sun, Planescape, Forgotten Realms, etc, with official supplements using the changes. There's no reason why either Eberron or Greyhawk would be any different. No, it went against a flavor change that followers of Heironeous should use axes, and did so for no useful reason. Which doesn't change the fact that those players who want their followers of Heironeous to use swords were allowed to do so, despite that it goes against a the flavor that followers of Heironeous should use axes. Those who liked the change can use swords. Those that didn't can use axes. Leaving the choice to the player is the preferable choice. What it stripped was campaign flavor. Which is a meaningless statement that doesn't include degree or the fact that settings change. It would be like saying that the slaying of Kalak of Tyr and the sanctioning of preservers in Tyr stripped Dark Sun of flavor, or that saying that having a 'treaty' between all the good deities stripped Planescape of its flavor. And, as stated, the choice was ultimately left to the player as to what flavor they prefered. You mean the way making her a patron of necromancers went against established Wizard's canon, obviously changing her views. Hardly a justification. "Established Wizard canon" is the latest release of a product featuring that canon. Last I checked, that was the PHB v3.5, not Greyhawk 2e. They were also neutral in AD&D. So their alignment is the result of "least common denominator intelligence" reasoning, the same as paladins with swords, and Cuthbert being too like Heironeous. All of which are the core of my arguments against numerous design changes. Not really. It has to do with the simple prescendant that creatures with no minds are incapable of moral choice, which applies to mindless undead, and is backed by centuries of philsophical thought. Making gods too much alike is a design flaw, though probably inevitable to any game with so many gods -- overlap is bound to occur at some level, especially similar gods for the same species. Giving all non-evil death gods repose and all evil death gods death is quite similar to the error you describe of making gods too much alike, as is making all non-evil deities dislike undead automatically. As for paladins = swords, that's a stereotype, just like undead = evil. Just as Good isn't Stupid, so Evil doesn't have to be depraved. You can have an Evil deity who actually doesn't like dead things swarming all over the place. 1) Given that Wee Jas and her clerics are lawful, I dobut the undead that serve them would "swarm" in any sense of the word, or that they would go crazy with them, especially considering that they follow local and laws, which would probably involve checks on this practice. 2) If there's nothing depraved about a wizard making a swarm of flesh golems, it can hardly be said that there's anything depraved about having undead minnions gaurd your temples. 3) The notion that surrounding yourself with dead things = depraved is just more evidence of the sort of bias fueling this decision. Dead things = morbid. Murdering, raping, and torturing people = depraved. I'd imagine that there are quite a few people in the fields of undertaking, morturary services, and criminal science who interact with death and the dead on a regular basis, even to the point of being surrounded by dead things (like a mortician's average day at work) who could quite easily be described as morbid, but certainly aren't depraved. Necromancy is made easier to practice by being evil. You don't have to worry about the social norms and taboos associated with the practice, and getting raw materials is easier. Then again, being a weapons dealer is also easier to practice if you are evil, and don't care who you are arming. This falls apart even more in a fantasy setting where the dead things walk, talk, and can hold interesting conversations. Why does it have to be changed by Wizards? A specific campaign is different from generic core rules. Wizards doesn't have to change anything. And, in the cases of these campaigns, you have a book specifically detailing the setting's differences with the PHB and other core material. Greyhawk is different in that it's campaign book is the core material. And, for an official sanctioned game of D&D in the setting of Greyhawk, both of which are Wizard's, sticking to the limited canon that Wizards actually printed (compared to FR or Eberron) is probably a good thing. It would be like trying to run an officially sanction Dark Sun game without taking into account any of the changes between Dark Sun 1.0 to Dark Sun 2.0. You are wrong about those things you suggested about AD&D (1st and 2nd ed, since Greyhawk has been around from 1st), and what the various changes were. Ummm... no. The vast majority of settings I've seen were sanatized a great deal in 2e (1e was before my time). Every undead creature I saw from 2e, save for a very few (revenant, crypt thing, and lich, good come to mind) were evil. IIRC, neutral clerics turned undead all the time. Etc. As for the rest, it was opinion, or speaking from a point of view, so there wasn't much to be wrong about. Not in the least. The setting has evolved dramatically. Wander down to the Greyhawk forum and you can read some views on just how much it has changed. Then why the big issues with minor changes to two deities, and a minor to moderate change that makes sense for a final one? If there have been alot of changes to the setting, then That Wee Jas opposed the creation of undead. That isn't a minor development, it is a major one. So something major happened between 2e and 3e. Did nothing similar happen between 1e and 2e? And, honestly, it's not that big of a change -- it's one god out of many, and she changed one policy. She was a god of law and magic before death had anything to do with her. Fist, while I don't know thit, was her opposition to undead before or after she was associated with undeath? Secondly, as I stated above, gods are sympathetic beings. As more necromancers became her followers and clerics, it isn't implausible by any stretch, as long as it conforms with her focus on law and discipline, as I noted above. If you want to be a true necromancer, find another deity to sponsor you. Notice how they all were changed? Funny that. And it had nothing to do with sanatizing the setting. I guess that was a side benefit. :/ Haven't you ever seen her picture? :P Nah, that was the Succubus from the MM. Wee Jas only has a head-shot in Deities, IIRC. Because creating swarms of dead things to serve you isn't a heroic archetype. The Living Greyhawk campaign is about being a hero. Not an anti-hero. Not a protagonist. A hero. Bold and up front, reluctant, noble, farmboy, or whatever in-between. But not being overtly evil and just fighting against evil, or a callous mercenary who just wants to get paid, or whatever else that isn't being a hero. Being a hero. Accomodating non-heroic archetypes in such a campaign is a diminishment of that stated purpose, and a loss of the spirit of the campaign. Too much such accommodating has been done. I opposed it then, I oppose it now. 1) There's nothing anti-heroic about raising the dead to serve you. It might make people uncomfortable, but raising a host of skeletons to supplement is far more heroic than letting some peasant conscripts die becaue your army needs fodder or risking the lives of living, flesh and blood human beings to gaurd your temple. It may fly in the face of the stereotype of heroism, but then again, so do rogues (see #3). I can make a good case for raising disciplined undead servants as being heroic. What can you offer that makes it unheroic? 2) You aren't the only one playing this game. What is and isn't heroic should be upto players. If they agree, then it won't be in the game by their choice. And if not, then they are, overall, happier. 3) There are different standards of heroic. By the mediveal setting Greyhawk uses, rogues are all anti-heroes, and thus, should be banned, because they fight from the shadows, they snipe, and they strike opponents when they are vulnerable instead of participating in a stand-up fight. Skulking about waiting for opportunity for a swift kill hardly inspires images of heroism. Should rogues be removed from the game since they aren't heroic? Then there are things that don't seem heroic to some, but simply take a deeper view of the issue, and are largely point of view. D&D is designed to accomidate these points of view -- that's why there's an alignment system that has an axis for law and chaos, good and evil, instead of using something like Star Wars d20, which hands out darkside points whenver someone does something evil. Evil is the part of the spectrum that is anti-heroic, that is villainy. A chaotic good rogue is a hero, despite flying in the face of the paladin view of heroics common for the mediveal world. That Doesn't mean that the rogue is any less of a hero. The same applies to other characters of other alignments. How can it be argued that a non-evil necromancer is not a hero when her/his skeletons and minnions save a town from a group of enemies that would have swarmed over a group with fewer numbers? Such a character may not fit the paladin vision of heroic, or even most people's vision of heroic. But similar to the rogue, or the view in mediveal times, this doesn't make the character any less of a hero. Here, "anti-hero" just means that the character does something that others find distasteful. Then again, I'd imagine that most people find a coroner's work distasteful (or a doctors, for that matter).
Objulen 02-28-06, 10:14 PM	The name Greyhawk is from the past. That means everything that goes with Greyhawk from the past comes forward. That was the whole point of using Greyhawk, to take advantage of that body of material. Doing otherwise would be like suggesting that Xen'drik Campaigns completely ignore everything previously published for Eberron. That would be a waste of material, and of the name factor. It means this. However, all campaign settings I know of also change over time. Dark Sun, Planescape, Forgotten Realms, etc, with official supplements using the changes. There's no reason why either Eberron or Greyhawk would be any different. No, it went against a flavor change that followers of Heironeous should use axes, and did so for no useful reason. Which doesn't change the fact that those players who want their followers of Heironeous to use swords were allowed to do so, despite that it goes against a the flavor that followers of Heironeous should use axes. Those who liked the change can use swords. Those that didn't can use axes. Leaving the choice to the player is the preferable choice. What it stripped was campaign flavor. Which is a meaningless statement that doesn't include degree or the fact that settings change. It would be like saying that the slaying of Kalak of Tyr and the sanctioning of preservers in Tyr stripped Dark Sun of flavor, or that saying that having a 'treaty' between all the good deities stripped Planescape of its flavor. And, as stated, the choice is ultimately left to the player as to what flavor they prefered. You mean the way making her a patron of necromancers went against established Wizard's canon, obviously changing her views. Hardly a justification. "Established Wizard canon" is the latest release of a product featuring that canon. Last I checked, that was the PHB v3.5, not Greyhawk 2e. They were also neutral in AD&D. So their alignment is the result of "least common denominator intelligence" reasoning, the same as paladins with swords, and Cuthbert being too like Heironeous. All of which are the core of my arguments against numerous design changes. Not really. It has to do with the simple prescendant that creatures with no minds are incapable of moral choice, which applies to mindless undead, and is backed by centuries of philsophical thought. Making gods too much alike is a design flaw, though probably inevitable to any game with so many gods -- overlap is bound to occur at some level, especially similar gods for the same species. Giving all non-evil death gods repose and all evil death gods death is quite similar to the error you describe of making gods too much alike, as is making all non-evil deities dislike undead automatically. As for paladins = swords, that's a stereotype, just like undead = evil. Just as Good isn't Stupid, so Evil doesn't have to be depraved. You can have an Evil deity who actually doesn't like dead things swarming all over the place. 1) Given that Wee Jas and her clerics are lawful, I dobut the undead that serve them would "swarm" in any sense of the word, or that they would go crazy with them, especially considering that they follow local and laws, which would probably involve checks on this practice. 2) If there's nothing depraved about a wizard making a swarm of flesh golems, it can hardly be said that there's anything depraved about having undead minnions gaurd your temples. 3) The notion that surrounding yourself with dead things = depraved is just more evidence of the sort of bias fueling this decision. Dead things = morbid. Murdering, raping, and torturing people = depraved. I'd imagine that there are quite a few people in the fields of undertaking, morturary services, and criminal science who interact with death and the dead on a regular basis, even to the point of being surrounded by dead things (like a mortician's average day at work) who could quite easily be described as morbid, but certainly aren't depraved. Necromancy is made easier to practice by being evil. You don't have to worry about the social norms and taboos associated with the practice, and getting raw materials is easier. Then again, being a weapons dealer is also easier to practice if you are evil, and don't care who you are arming. This falls apart even more in a fantasy setting where the dead things walk, talk, and can hold interesting conversations. Why does it have to be changed by Wizards? A specific campaign is different from generic core rules. Wizards doesn't have to change anything. And, in the cases of these campaigns, you have a book specifically detailing the setting's differences with the PHB and other core material. Greyhawk is different in that it's campaign book is the core material. And, for an official sanctioned game of D&D in the setting of Greyhawk, both of which are Wizard's, sticking to the limited canon that Wizards actually printed (compared to FR or Eberron) is probably a good thing. It would be like trying to run an officially sanction Dark Sun game without taking into account any of the changes between Dark Sun 1.0 to Dark Sun 2.0. You are wrong about those things you suggested about AD&D (1st and 2nd ed, since Greyhawk has been around from 1st), and what the various changes were. Ummm... no. The vast majority of settings I've seen were sanatized a great deal in 2e (1e was before my time). Every undead creature I saw from 2e, save for a very few (revenant, crypt thing, and lich, good come to mind) were evil. IIRC, neutral clerics turned undead all the time. Etc. As for the rest, it was opinion, or speaking from a point of view, so there wasn't much to be wrong about. Not in the least. The setting has evolved dramatically. Wander down to the Greyhawk forum and you can read some views on just how much it has changed. Then why the big issues with minor changes to two deities, and a minor to moderate change that makes sense for a final one? If there have been alot of changes to the setting, then why is going up against the PHB such a big deal? That Wee Jas opposed the creation of undead. That isn't a minor development, it is a major one. So something major happened between 2e and 3e. Did nothing similar happen between 1e and 2e? And, honestly, it's not that big of a change -- it's one god out of many, and she changed one policy. She was a god of law and magic before death had anything to do with her. First, while I don't know this, was her opposition to undead before or after she was associated with death? Secondly, as I stated above, gods are sympathetic beings. As more necromancers became her followers and clerics, it isn't implausible by any stretch, as long as it conforms with her focus on law and discipline, as I noted above. If you want to be a true necromancer, find another deity to sponsor you. Notice how they all were changed? Funny that. And it had nothing to do with sanatizing the setting. I guess that was a side benefit. :/ Haven't you ever seen her picture? :P Nah, that was the Succubus from the MM. Wee Jas only has a head-shot in Deities, IIRC. Because creating swarms of dead things to serve you isn't a heroic archetype. The Living Greyhawk campaign is about being a hero. Not an anti-hero. Not a protagonist. A hero. Bold and up front, reluctant, noble, farmboy, or whatever in-between. But not being overtly evil and just fighting against evil, or a callous mercenary who just wants to get paid, or whatever else that isn't being a hero. Being a hero. Accomodating non-heroic archetypes in such a campaign is a diminishment of that stated purpose, and a loss of the spirit of the campaign. Too much such accommodating has been done. I opposed it then, I oppose it now. 1) There's nothing anti-heroic about raising the dead to serve you. It might make people uncomfortable, but raising a host of skeletons to supplement is far more heroic than letting some peasant conscripts die becaue your army needs fodder or risking the lives of living, flesh and blood human beings to gaurd your temple. It may fly in the face of the stereotype of heroism, but then again, so do rogues (see #3). I can make a good case for raising disciplined undead servants as being heroic. What can you offer that makes it unheroic? 2) You aren't the only one playing this game. What is and isn't heroic should be upto players. If they agree, then it won't be in the game by their choice. And if not, then they are, overall, happier. 3) There are different standards of heroic. By the mediveal setting Greyhawk uses, rogues are all anti-heroes, and thus, should be banned, because they fight from the shadows, they snipe, and they strike opponents when they are vulnerable instead of participating in a stand-up fight. Skulking about waiting for opportunity for a swift kill hardly inspires images of heroism. Should rogues be removed from the game since they aren't heroic? Then there are things that don't seem heroic to some, but simply take a deeper view of the issue, and are largely point of view. D&D is designed to accomidate these points of view -- that's why there's an alignment system that has an axis for law and chaos, good and evil, instead of using something like Star Wars d20, which hands out darkside points whenver someone does something evil. Evil is the part of the spectrum that is truely anti-heroic, the villain. A chaotic good rogue is a hero, despite flying in the face of the paladin view of heroics common for the mediveal world. That Doesn't mean that the rogue is any less of a hero. The same applies to other characters of other alignments. How can it be argued that a non-evil necromancer is not a hero when her/his skeletons and minnions save a town from a group of enemies that would have swarmed over a group with fewer numbers? Such a character may not fit the paladin vision of heroic, or even most people's vision of heroic. But similar to the rogue, or the view in mediveal times, this doesn't make the character any less of a hero. Here, "anti-hero" just means that the character does something that others find distasteful. Then again, I'd imagine that most people find a coroner's work distasteful (or a doctors, for that matter).
opa 02-28-06, 10:39 PM	OK don't know how old you guys are or how long you've been greyhawk players but.. I could go back as far as the Stats in Dragon magazine but instead I'll just use some facts from the 1983 boxed set which was the first real commercial product to market the greyhawk dieties Wee Jas LN Suel goddess of death and magic the Suel part is important because remember in greyhawk we are dealing with multiple pantheons and just because Nerull is a god of Death, Darkness and the Underworld to the Flan doesn't mean Wee Jas is less needed Pholtus LG(LN) Oeridian God of Light Resolution and Law..he was a LG god that had a Zealous LN movement in the Pale St. Cuthbert LG(LN) Oeridian god of Wisdom dedication and Zeal hieroneous LG Oeridian god of Chivalry Honor Justice and Valor shortly thereafter in the Greyhawk Adventures hardcover attempts were mad eto clarify the difference between Clerics alignments worshipping the gods and worshippers alignment it clarifies WAL worshippers alignment as the alignment of the dieties NON clerical worshippers St cuthbert LG(LN) WAL LG, LN Clerics LG,LN Pholtus LG(LN) WAL any Lawful, Clerics LN so I will stay away from any arguments about semantics and just present some facts Wee Jas =Suel death Goddess Nerull= Flan Death God Pholtus there since before the first greyhawk info was printed and didnt allow for evil clerics St Cuthbert was a LG god As a player in the greyhawk setting for near 30 years I have been relatively happy with its evolution.. I would prefer to have had Hieroneous kept his axe but really the game evolves and its the rpgas right at this point to evolve it, if you don't like the reason you think the sword replaced the axe, adapt and evolve ..his worshippers would.. If someone in charge determined at some point all of a sudden one of those evil non cleric worshippers of pholtus somehow was granted preistly powers perhaps to battle CN Barbarians or CE hextorites threatening LE Pholtans, then so be it it happened, If someone now determines that pholtus no longer ordains LE clerics so be it, they are the Judge , the GM, and they have done a remarkable job. ( as far as I can tell it happened in the Bandit Kingdoms in a region bordering the theocracy of the pale.. The Grand Theocracy of Dimre), and its a great story and makes sense, this sect of LE Pholtan Clerics believes that to understand the glory of the light you must first walk hand in hand with darkness) Regardless of what changes are made, someone is affected, when you speak about pholtus, a change to him would change the whole theocracy of the Pale, change to wildshape affects druids, changes to nightsticks affects clerics... adapt and evolve and thank them for the ride... or play a home game Living greyhawk gazateer 2000..Wee Jas was the Suel goddess of magic who gained her death aspect when the survivors of the colorless rain looked to her for assurance that the dead were being escorted to the underworld, her clerics even needed permission to bring back to life chaotic or weak people.. also LGG 2000 where Hieroneous gains favored weapons of Battleaxe or Sword and it claims that he has been recently promoting the use of the longsword in order to appeal to common soldiers as well as paladins and leaders, to me it makes sense..why wouldnt he try to appeal to a group of potential worshippers who had been turning to other gods like st cuthbert, rao or pelor.. especially after the depletion war gods suffered after the wars...its the right of the people gifted with the permission to write the story who get to write it, even gods have personality's and they get to write them.. Kudos to everyone who has helped Greyhawk live on, instead of stagnate die and be forgotten, kudos to those of us who play the hero's , let us adapt and evolve as the story gets told .
Samwise 02-28-06, 10:46 PM	It means this. However, all campaign settings I know of also change over time. Dark Sun, Planescape, Forgotten Realms, etc, with official supplements using the changes. There's no reason why either Eberron or Greyhawk would be any different. So the Lady of Pain should wake up one day and start to talk? The Dragon should have a change of heart and become a good guy? I don't think so. Those who liked the change can use swords. Those that didn't can use axes. Leaving the choice to the player is the preferable choice. Except there wasn't a choice in the core rules. It had to be changed for LG. Which is a meaningless statement that doesn't include degree or the fact that settings change. It would be like saying that the slaying of Kalak of Tyr and the sanctioning of preservers in Tyr stripped Dark Sun of flavor, or that saying that having a 'treaty' between all the good deities stripped Planescape of its flavor. The first are evolutions in the mundane aspects of a campaign. The second a rather fundamental shift in the overall game system premises. There is a difference. "Established Wizard canon" is the latest release of a product featuring that canon. Last I checked, that was the PHB v3.5, not Greyhawk 2e. Incorrect. Canon is the sum total of approved material for a setting, not merely the most recent material released. That is the whole concept behind canon, that it is an accumulation of material, and not merely a spot effort, recreating the world as a whole each time. 1) Given that Wee Jas and her clerics are lawful, I dobut the undead that serve them would "swarm" in any sense of the word, or that they would go crazy with them, especially considering that they follow local and laws, which would probably involve checks on this practice. If they are so lawful, why the sudden change in the laws? 2) If there's nothing depraved about a wizard making a swarm of flesh golems, it can hardly be said that there's anything depraved about having undead minnions gaurd your temples. Who said there wasn't something inherently depraved in using stolen corpses to create a flesh golem? Something doesn't have to be listed as evil to be nasty. 3) The notion that surrounding yourself with dead things = depraved is just more evidence of the sort of bias fueling this decision. Dead things = morbid. Murdering, raping, and torturing people = depraved. I'd imagine that there are quite a few people in the fields of undertaking, morturary services, and criminal science who interact with death and the dead on a regular basis, even to the point of being surrounded by dead things (like a mortician's average day at work) who could quite easily be described as morbid, but certainly aren't depraved. And yet they don't engage in enslaving the souls of the dead, or animating the corpses as servants, or any of the other things that necromancy entails. So you are correct, those other acts are only morbid and not depraved, and very much highlight the difference, and why Wee Jas can be a deity of the dead with the repose domain instead of the death domain. This falls apart even more in a fantasy setting where the dead things walk, talk, and can hold interesting conversations. Actually, that makes it worse. Particularly when many of those dead things live on human bodies, blood, and life energy. Ummm... no. The vast majority of settings I've seen were sanatized a great deal in 2e (1e was before my time). Every undead creature I saw from 2e, save for a very few (revenant, crypt thing, and lich, good come to mind) were evil. IIRC, neutral clerics turned undead all the time. Etc. Which is why you apparently don't know that none of that was sanitized. Those undead were evil in 1st ed as well. As for the rest, it was opinion, or speaking from a point of view, so there wasn't much to be wrong about. And yet it made presumptions about changes or the state of things that did not exist. Things you seem to think were sanitized were not, things you don't realize were sanitized were. So something major happened between 2e and 3e. Did nothing similar happen between 1e and 2e? And, honestly, it's not that big of a change -- it's one god out of many, and she changed one policy. She was a god of law and magic before death had anything to do with her. Well among other things, Wee Jas became an intermediate power instead of greater power. Fist, while I don't know thit, was her opposition to undead before or after she was associated with undeath? She was never associated with undeath. Secondly, as I stated above, gods are sympathetic beings. Now that is an opinion. And thus not necessarily correct. Nah, that was the Succubus from the MM. Wee Jas only has a head-shot in Deities, IIRC. And you recall incorrectly. Not in the MM, but an issue of Dragon. 1) There's nothing anti-heroic about raising the dead to serve you. It might make people uncomfortable, but raising a host of skeletons to supplement is far more heroic than letting some peasant conscripts die becaue your army needs fodder or risking the lives of living, flesh and blood human beings to gaurd your temple. It may fly in the face of the stereotype of heroism, but then again, so do rogues (see #3). Wow. Not at all. Raising the dead is always anti-heroic. I can make a good case for raising disciplined undead servants as being heroic. What can you offer that makes it unheroic? Heroism is an aspect of choice. Dead you have raised have no choice, and any such use of enslaved souls is thus inherently unheroic on the part of the person raising them, and the part of the dead so forced into servitude. 2) You aren't the only one playing this game. What is and isn't heroic should be upto players. If they agree, then it won't be in the game by their choice. And if not, then they are, overall, happier. No. It shouldn't. All opinions are not equally valid. If that were the case we should be allowed to play evil alignments, and brutally stab each other in the back. Someone thinks that is heroic after all. 3) There are different standards of heroic. By the mediveal setting Greyhawk uses, rogues are all anti-heroes, and thus, should be banned, because they fight from the shadows, they snipe, and they strike opponents when they are vulnerable instead of participating in a stand-up fight. Skulking about waiting for opportunity for a swift kill hardly inspires images of heroism. Should rogues be removed from the game since they aren't heroic? If that is all rogues are capable of doing, then they should be. Since they can do much, much more, there is no need to. And no, they are not in fact anti-heroes by those standards. The clever trickster is an incredibly ancient archetype, and present even in general medieval stories. Then there are things that don't seem heroic to some, but simply take a deeper view of the issue, and are largely point of view. D&D is designed to accomidate these points of view -- that's why there's an alignment system that has an axis for law and chaos, good and evil, instead of using something like Star Wars d20, which hands out darkside points whenver someone does something evil. Evil is the part of the spectrum that is anti-heroic, that is villainy.[QUOTE] OR; The alignment system is there to be able to define both heroes and villains using the same system, and to distinguish between subtypes of both. By defining lawful and chaotic along with good and evil we can accommodate both the demon and the devil, not merely one generic "fiend." This does not mean every part of the alignment system must, or even should, be open to all player characters. Instead, it serves to place a limit on where they can be to further distinguish them from the villains. [QUOTE]Here, "anti-hero" just means that the character does something that others find distasteful. Then again, I'd imagine that most people find a coroner's work distasteful (or a doctors, for that matter). There is more to it than just that. Past a certain point you are beyond distateful into horrific. And that is not the realm of the hero.
Objulen 02-28-06, 11:41 PM	So the Lady of Pain should wake up one day and start to talk? The Dragon should have a change of heart and become a good guy? I don't think so. The magnitude you are refering to here is incredibly skewed. What you suggest would be like having Wee Jas turn her back on vanity or magic, not accepting undead and embracing her necromantic worshipers. And, for the record, the dragon died, but Oronus of Kurn is a good champion on his way to becoming an Avangion. Except there wasn't a choice in the core rules. It had to be changed for LG. And there wouldn't be a choice for a core campaign book for a setting like FG or Eberron. This is a non-issue -- if you want to be called official, then sticking with canon is a good thing. And if you are so concerned about choice, then why are you so ready to restrict player's choices? This change goes far beyond Wee Jas -- it effects every non-evil death god. It's somewhat incredible to say make this claim when it seems you are willing to restrict player choices in such a manner. The first are evolutions in the mundane aspects of a campaign. The second a rather fundamental shift in the overall game system premises. There is a difference. There is, but the second has not happened. Wee Jas having the death domain is not a fundamental shift the overall system premises. It is a change in policy for one god, and isn't much bigger of a change than including long swords for Heironeous' favored weapons. I believe that opa pointed out that Wee Jas was originally a goddess of death for a different region than Nerull. Incorrect. Canon is the sum total of approved material for a setting, not merely the most recent material released. That is the whole concept behind canon, that it is an accumulation of material, and not merely a spot effort, recreating the world as a whole each time. But the newer material takes prescendant over older material. The PHB 3.5 definantly qualifies as "newer material". If they are so lawful, why the sudden change in the laws? There's a difference between being lawful and being static. Lawful is dependable, not unchanging. As I said, gods are sympathetic beings -- they change their followers, and are changed by them. Wee Jas embraced her newest followers, and grew to accomidate them. Given that Wee Jas protects the souls of the Suel, it certainly seem that she has a bit of a soft spot for her followers. Who said there wasn't something inherently depraved in using stolen corpses to create a flesh golem? Something doesn't have to be listed as evil to be nasty. Sorry, but are you trying to prove my point? Just because undead are "nasty" from a certain point of view doesn't mean that it's evil. People eat cats and and dogs in Korea. Hindus reguard cattle as sacred. I know I'm not "depraved" simply because I eat beef anymore than Koreans are "depraved" for their particular culinary choices. And yet they don't engage in enslaving the souls of the dead, or animating the corpses as servants, or any of the other things that necromancy entails. Umm... that would be because in real life.... (I was hoping "criminal science" would have been a good hint; guess I'll need to be clearer next time). And, in default D&D, undead are souless, which makes enslaving souls via making undead a bit difficult. So you are correct, those other acts are only morbid and not depraved, and very much highlight the difference, and why Wee Jas can be a deity of the dead with the repose domain instead of the death domain. Or, you missed the point. What is a commonly accepted aspect of criminal science was condemned several hundred years ago as an offense punishable by death Western Europe. Simply because you think something is "nasty", which is a purely subjective term, doesn't make it evil or depraved. Actually, that makes it worse. Particularly when many of those dead things live on human bodies, blood, and life energy. Some do, but other's don't. I'd imagine that a responsible necromancer wouldn't go around making those types of undead. And many don't live on human bodies, blood, and life energy, but any source of bodies, blood, and life energy. No rule I've seen bars vampires from feeding on her animals. Which is why you apparently don't know that none of that was sanitized. Those undead were evil in 1st ed as well. Yes, which is the sanitization I'm talking about! D&D has a trend of moving away from the notion that necromancers & undead = evil through editions. Hence, a non-evil necromancer god, allowing neutral characters to rebuke undead, making necromancer classes nongood instead of evil-only. Going back isn't a good thing, which is what is effectivly being done by making the Death domain NPC only. And yet it made presumptions about changes or the state of things that did not exist. Things you seem to think were sanitized were not, things you don't realize were sanitized were. No, I am quite aware. See my above comment. Well among other things, Wee Jas became an intermediate power instead of greater power. Which, if you noticed, wasn't touched by any revisions in Deities 2.0, and yet more evidence that there's more to this decision than a simple desire to make things like they used to be. Given that 3e focused on Nerull as the primary death god, and Boccob as the primary magic god, it makes sense that Wee Jas would be an intermediate deity, as she has a more specialized and/or regional following than either of the former. She was never associated with undeath. That sentence was rather full of errors. It was corrected. Now that is an opinion. And thus not necessarily correct. Not at all. The fact that Wee Jas gained a domain after a specific event shifted how she was percieved proves this well enough. Deities are tied to the worship of their followers, their fates and their fortunes. If all the dwarves suddenly died, Moradun would probably follow suit, with the Gythyanki making a new home in his skull as his corpse floated about the astral plane. And you recall incorrectly. Not in the MM, but an issue of Dragon. Um. I was refering to the "hotness" factor with the Succubus line. And I didn't read that issue of dragon, so I'm afraid I'll have to take your word for it. By "Deities", I meant "Deities and Demigods", which is the only printed book that has her picture, IIRC. Wow. Not at all. Raising the dead is always anti-heroic. Well, it's nice to know that ignoring someone's arguments is alive and well. I guess we're reaching the point where you are running out of anything to actually say to counter my point. If not, then please actually address the argument. And, again, this is from your point of view. From my point of view, it was never anything but heroic. I will also refer you to the historical examples listed above on the matter of perspectives. From D&D's point of view, it's certainly Lawful Neutral, which means that, since there are LN heroes, it can be heroic. Heroism is an aspect of choice. Dead you have raised have no choice, and any such use of enslaved souls is thus inherently unheroic on the part of the person raising them, and the part of the dead so forced into servitude. As stated above, undead in default D&D (and thus Greyhawk) have no souls. You can't enslave what isn't there. And, given that mindless undead are just that, this is an even further stretch of logic in their case, since they are little more than weak constructs fueled by negative energy instead of elemental spirits. Everything with a soul has an intelligence score, with few, if any, exceptions (I can't think of any). I don't think the elemental spirits had alot of say in the matter, while we are on the topic of slavery. Yet making golems isn't evil. Stranger and stranger. Then there's the topic of Magic Jar and Entrap the Soul, not to mention Imprisonment. Not exactly enslaving souls, but "trapping them and barring them from the afterlife" certainly doesn't seem heroic by this standard either. Yet these spells don't have the evil descriptor -- at least an intelligent undead creature can end its existance, once it gains freedom, if it had a soul to free. Something with a trapped soul or suffering the effects of Imprisonment doesn't even have that option. And if undead have souls, then why are they all supposed to be evil? I'd generally think that if a paladin was turned into a wight and then freed from its domitors control, it wouldn't be evil if it had the origional soul. No. It shouldn't. All opinions are not equally valid. If that were the case we should be allowed to play evil alignments, and brutally stab each other in the back. Someone thinks that is heroic after all. Well, if you want to take what I said to its logical extreme. You are, however, being quite unrealistic about it. "My way or the high way" is no way to run a game at all, and I'm backed up by the 6 different PC alignments in the game, which all have different views. Evil classifies a specific outlook that is villianous by the game, and as I mentioned in a post earlier, by the PHB, there's nothing evil about raising an undead servant. If that is all rogues are capable of doing, then they should be. Since they can do much, much more, there is no need to. And no, they are not in fact anti-heroes by those standards. The clever trickster is an incredibly ancient archetype, and present even in general medieval stories. 1) Backstab is a main feature of the rogue class. It is an iconic ability. So is sneaking around. That's two. 2) Any necromantic character outside of the Dread Necromancer can do more than just necromancy. 3) The trickster was present in many medieval stories. Real life tricksters were not held in nearly as high regaurd. They were regaurded as scoundrels most of the time -- vile, cowardly creatures who couldn't face an opponent in battle, without honor or morals (I guess it was a case of not being appreciated until after you're dead). Pointing out a few stories as exceptions doesn't change the stereotype of living people who actually were the "tricksters" at the time. OR; The alignment system is there to be able to define both heroes and villains using the same system, and to distinguish between subtypes of both. By defining lawful and chaotic along with good and evil we can accommodate both the demon and the devil, not merely one generic "fiend." And, as I pointed out, there would be no neutral alignments if that was all it was intended for. There really wouldn't even need to be an alignment system at all. Good and evil are purely black and white, then we can just use a darkside point system or a taint system, with perhaps a law/chaos rating, or some such. This does not mean every part of the alignment system must, or even should, be open to all player characters. Instead, it serves to place a limit on where they can be to further distinguish them from the villains. Or, perhaps we just need the actions of the villains to speak for themselves, while the heroes' actions do the same. Such artificial differentiations are only necessary if people refuse to move beyond easily recognized stereotypes, and quite frankly, demeaning and degrading of the role playing experiance. I can build a necromancer who's a hero, and one who is a villain, and it will be easy to tell the two appart if you care to actually see what they do for any length of time instead of relying on stereotypes to make your judgements for you. "He's evil bob." "How can you tell?" "He's got skeletons!" Flinging around detect evil as an easy way to tell who you can kill from who you can't has been a negative stereotype of D&D for a reason. The same applies to the "roll playing" stereotype of D&D, and the excessive black & white stereotype of D&D. There is more to it than just that. Past a certain point you are beyond distateful into horrific. And that is not the realm of the hero. And that's when you generally get into true evil. Before that, you are generally dealing with cultural bias. Of course, it does depend on who you are talking to. I'd imagine that there are some individuals that reguard abortion as getting "into horrific" (not that this is an invitation to start a massive argument on abortion -- it's just an example).
Samwise 03-01-06, 12:44 AM	The magnitude you are refering to here is incredibly skewed. What you suggest would be like having Wee Jas turn her back on vanity or magic, not accepting undead and embracing her necromantic worshipers. Except it is turning her back on part of her portfolio, that of protecting the dead rather than using them. And, for the record, the dragon died, but Oronus of Kurn is a good champion on his way to becoming an Avangion. Right. The dragon DIDN'T become an avangion. And there wouldn't be a choice for a core campaign book for a setting like FG or Eberron. This is a non-issue -- if you want to be called official, then sticking with canon is a good thing. Except the core rules are just written for the core, not the settings. The core deities don't exist in Eberron at all. And if you are so concerned about choice, then why are you so ready to restrict player's choices? As I said, not every choice if of equal worth. I believe that opa pointed out that Wee Jas was originally a goddess of death for a different region than Nerull. Being a deity of death is not automatically being a deity of undeath. The two are not synonymous. But the newer material takes prescendant over older material. The PHB 3.5 definantly qualifies as "newer material". And the LGG even newer. And the LGCS newer still. There's a difference between being lawful and being static. Lawful is dependable, not unchanging. As I said, gods are sympathetic beings -- they change their followers, and are changed by them. Wee Jas embraced her newest followers, and grew to accomidate them. Given that Wee Jas protects the souls of the Suel, it certainly seem that she has a bit of a soft spot for her followers. It doesn't have to do with law, but with the nature of deities and their dependence on worshipers. And protecting the souls of the Suel would strongly work against letting necromancers turn them into undead slaves. Sorry, but are you trying to prove my point? No, but you have certainly proven mine. Skeletons and zombies don't have to be evil themselves, but desecrating bodies like that certainly is. And, in default D&D, undead are souless, which makes enslaving souls via making undead a bit difficult. Intelligent undead are definitely not soulless. You should check that again. Many can be raised, and others are directly called spirits of deceased people. Or, you missed the point. What is a commonly accepted aspect of criminal science was condemned several hundred years ago as an offense punishable by death Western Europe. Simply because you think something is "nasty", which is a purely subjective term, doesn't make it evil or depraved. Except D&D alignment isn't subjective. It is purely objective. And, for better or worse, based on Western standards. Some do, but other's don't. I'd imagine that a responsible necromancer wouldn't go around making those types of undead. And many don't live on human bodies, blood, and life energy, but any source of bodies, blood, and life energy. No rule I've seen bars vampires from feeding on her animals. Then the person isn't a necromancer as presented in the prestige classes you mentioned, he is just someone who uses lot of spells from the necromancy school. And feeding on any life energy is just as vile. Yes, which is the sanitization I'm talking about! D&D has a trend of moving away from the notion that necromancers & undead = evil through editions. Hence, a non-evil necromancer god, allowing neutral characters to rebuke undead, making necromancer classes nongood instead of evil-only. Going back isn't a good thing, which is what is effectivly being done by making the Death domain NPC only. Except there hasn't been any move away from that. If anything there has been move towards it. Skeletons and zombies weren't evil before, now they are. Animate dead wasn't declared evil in the rules before, it is now. And just because a necromancer is one of the neutral alignments still doesn't make them good. In fact it strictly highlights that a necromancer can never be good. No, I am quite aware. See my above comment. Yes I do see it. And it still shows a lack of knowledge about what was changed, or rather not changed, between 1st and 2nd ed, and makes presumptions about it based on what is in 3e. Given that 3e focused on Nerull as the primary death god, and Boccob as the primary magic god, it makes sense that Wee Jas would be an intermediate deity, as she has a more specialized and/or regional following than either of the former. Wrong yet again. The change was made because intermediate deities didn't exist in 1st ed, they were introduced in 2nd ed. As a result, a large number of lesser deities were promoted, and a small number of greater deities demoted. Not at all. The fact that Wee Jas gained a domain after a specific event shifted how she was percieved proves this well enough. Deities are tied to the worship of their followers, their fates and their fortunes. If all the dwarves suddenly died, Moradun would probably follow suit, with the Gythyanki making a new home in his skull as his corpse floated about the astral plane. By one theory. Not by other theories. So what you have is stating one opinion on how the deities react to changes, but not the only one. Well, it's nice to know that ignoring someone's arguments is alive and well. I guess we're reaching the point where you are running out of anything to actually say to counter my point. If not, then please actually address the argument. I did. I addressed it quite clearly. raising the dead is evil. That is the rule. Evil is for the villains, not the heroes. As a further point, which you seem to refuse to address, is that you simply don't know what was in 1st ed, or what was changed, but you keep making assumptions about it. Assumptions that are extremely wrong. And, again, this is from your point of view. From my point of view, it was never anything but heroic. I will also refer you to the historical examples listed above on the matter of perspectives. From D&D's point of view, it's certainly Lawful Neutral, which means that, since there are LN heroes, it can be heroic. Point of view and opinion are not valid arguments in D&D which has a set and established alignment system. There is no "cultural relativism" in D&D. Good is good, evil is evil, heroic is heroic, and villainous is villainous. And just because there are LN heroes does not mean everything allowed to the LN alignment is heroic. That is an extreme logical fallacy. As stated above, undead in default D&D (and thus Greyhawk) have no souls. You can't enslave what isn't there. Then how can some be raised? I suggest you review the rules on that again. And, given that mindless undead are just that, this is an even further stretch of logic in their case, since they are little more than weak constructs fueled by negative energy instead of elemental spirits. Everything with a soul has an intelligence score, with few, if any, exceptions (I can't think of any). Elementals have souls too. Or rather, are souls. They are simply physically manifest, and destroyed completely along with their bodies. I don't think the elemental spirits had alot of say in the matter, while we are on the topic of slavery. Yet making golems isn't evil. Stranger and stranger. Because elemental spirits are not of the same class or worth as human (and related) spirits. Oh, and just in case, there is no distinction between "spirit" and "soul" in the game. The two are identical. Then there's the topic of Magic Jar and Entrap the Soul, not to mention Imprisonment. Not exactly enslaving souls, but "trapping them and barring them from the afterlife" certainly doesn't seem heroic by this standard either. Yet these spells don't have the evil descriptor -- at least an intelligent undead creature can end its existance, once it gains freedom, if it had a soul to free. Something with a trapped soul or suffering the effects of Imprisonment doesn't even have that option. Because retaining a soul in that manner can serve other purposes. And no, that isn't heroic at all. It just shows that not everything not heroic is evil by default. And if undead have souls, then why are they all supposed to be evil? For the same reason all fiends are supposed to be evil. Well, if you want to take what I said to its logical extreme. You are, however, being quite unrealistic about it. If that is the logical extreme, then it is hardly unrealistic. 1) Backstab is a main feature of the rogue class. It is an iconic ability. So is sneaking around. That's two. Backstab? What's that? I know about sneak attack, but no backstab. And how is such unheroic? And how is steath unheroic? Robin Hood did a ton of sneaking and hiding, and he was quite heroic. 2) Any necromantic character outside of the Dread Necromancer can do more than just necromancy. Except the specific changes from the death domain to the repose domain focus on creating the undead. So obviously we are talking about a very specific ability here. 3) The trickster was present in many medieval stories. Real life tricksters were not held in nearly as high regaurd. They were regaurded as scoundrels most of the time -- vile, cowardly creatures who couldn't face an opponent in battle, without honor or morals (I guess it was a case of not being appreciated until after you're dead). Pointing out a few stories as exceptions doesn't change the stereotype of living people who actually were the "tricksters" at the time. But this isn't about just "real life" tricksters, it is about archetypes. And tricksters are a valid archetype, even in medieval stories. And nice attempt to change the standard here. If we go by that, then anyone who is a necromancer is automatically villain, as you have made clear yourself. And, as I pointed out, there would be no neutral alignments if that was all it was intended for. There really wouldn't even need to be an alignment system at all. Good and evil are purely black and white, then we can just use a darkside point system or a taint system, with perhaps a law/chaos rating, or some such. You pointed to it, but did you interpret it correctly? The alignments are strongly defined. Go too far and you are in another alignment. Or, perhaps we just need the actions of the villains to speak for themselves, while the heroes' actions do the same. You mean like enslaving dead souls, or desecrating bodies? I agree, let the actions speak for themselves. Such artificial differentiations are only necessary if people refuse to move beyond easily recognized stereotypes, Not stereotypes, archetypes. And the game is in fact defined by archetypes. That is an essential element of the design and the overall experience. and quite frankly, demeaning and degrading of the role playing experiance. I can build a necromancer who's a hero, and one who is a villain, and it will be easy to tell the two appart if you care to actually see what they do for any length of time instead of relying on stereotypes to make your judgements for you. The game is not about moral relativism. You are not a hero just because you can justify whatever evil act you committed. Slaughtering a hundred to save a thousand is evil, no matter how you phase it. Nor is "But I am role-playing!" an absolute defense or justification. That was part of the problem with Wastri allowed as a deity. Does that suddenly constitute justification to act in a blatantly racist manner just because you can "justify" it by saying you help humans at certain times? The answer is a very resounding "NO!" "He's evil bob." "How can you tell?" "He's got skeletons!" Flinging around detect evil as an easy way to tell who you can kill from who you can't has been a negative stereotype of D&D for a reason. The same applies to the "roll playing" stereotype of D&D, and the excessive black & white stereotype of D&D. Except you couldn't use detect evil like that in AD&D, so how could it be such a stereotype? In fact the game has moved away towards allowing that, rather than requiring actual effort to determine if someone is evil by their actions. As for "roll playing" do you wish to put that up against "amateur theatrics"? Or put "black & white" up against "evil angst"? Those are equally harsh stereotypes. And that's when you generally get into true evil. Before that, you are generally dealing with cultural bias. Except cultural bias doesn't determine alignment, the alignment system does. That two good nations can still wind up at war does not negate that alignment system in any way, rather it validates its utiity and comprehensiveness.
Objulen 03-01-06, 11:42 AM	Except it is turning her back on part of her portfolio, that of protecting the dead rather than using them. No it's not. She still protects the souls of the dead. Undead have no souls. Given that she is a lawful deity with necromancer followers, she would lay down the law for them; one would expect that she wouldn't permit tomb-raiding, grave robbing, or similar un-lawful activites that are disrespectful to the dead. Bodies used to make undead would be purchased, such as with a contract before the person dies, taken as spoils of war, such as the bodies of orc bandits or armies, or granted by the state (such as giving the bodies of criminals to the clerics of Wee Jas) for various possible reasons. There would probably be restrictions, such as that the bodies of lawful beings could not be used. Right. The dragon DIDN'T become an avangion. No. The dragon died. However, a champion on his way to becoming a dragon, who like the rest of the champions lead genocidal wars (this one succeeded in his), beings who would seem to be little else but pure evil, turned his back on that and tried to make amends. The Sorcerer Kings are the BBEG of Dark Sun, since Rajat was imprisoned -- having a good one didn't break the setting. Except the core rules are just written for the core, not the settings. The core deities don't exist in Eberron at all. No, the core rules are for the setting of Greyhawk as well. As I said above, and which you seem to ignore, is that Greyhawk is the default setting for D&D, and that all supplements default to it unless stated otherwise. There is less specific material on Greyhawk because it is used as the core setting, and Wizards doesn't delinate the core with as much detail as settings with their own book, nor do I think that they were going to take over the setting lock, stock, and barrel without giving it it's own book. However, changes made in 3.5 to Greyhawk material are canon, despite whatever you might want. As I said, not every choice if of equal worth. And as I said, by your estimation. You seem quite willing to restrict player options for your enjoyment of the game, which is a very inconsiderate choice to make. Being a deity of death is not automatically being a deity of undeath. The two are not synonymous. I never said they were. However, Wee Jas is a goddess of death and magic. Death + Magic = Necromancy. Necromancers make undead. And the LGG even newer. And the LGCS newer still. LGCS is not official Wizard canon. It doesn't have to do with law, but with the nature of deities and their dependence on worshipers. I never mentioned law. You brought that up, saying that if she was lawful, why the change in law. I then responded, stating that lawful beings aren't static, but dependable, and that given the nature of deities and their dependance on worshipers, Wee Jas would have grown to accomidate her new worshipers. You seem to have forget what you said in your previous post. And protecting the souls of the Suel would strongly work against letting necromancers turn them into undead slaves. 1) Undead have no souls. This is, I belive, the 3rd time I posted this. How many times are you going to ignore it? 2) The death domain has no association with undead, which you said. 3) Wee Jas wouldn't make laws restricting the practice, I'd imagine. Things like grave-robbing and tomb-raiding wouldn't be allowed. No, but you have certainly proven mine. Skeletons and zombies don't have to be evil themselves, but desecrating bodies like that certainly is. Once again, no. You have demonstrably shown your bias and your narrow view point on the matter. As for desecrating bodies, that depends on the traditions and laws of the surrounding culture. Harvesting a donor's body for organs or using a donor's body to teach medicine is not a desecration of the dead, as more antiquated views would hold. Given that the clerics of Wee Jas follow the laws of a region, they would not desecrate the dead in their necromancy. Intelligent undead are definitely not soulless. You should check that again. Many can be raised, and others are directly called spirits of deceased people. I did. Read the Libris Mortis, one of the many sections scattered around the game referencing the undead. They are mindless, and souless, which would lead one to believe they wouldn't have an intelligence score, but I guess that little blip in continuity got passed the editors. Except D&D alignment isn't subjective. It is purely objective. And, for better or worse, based on Western standards. Which is why you have neutral characters. Necromantic heroes are of the neutral alignment, since they do things that the game considers to be less than good, much like every other neutral hero in the game. D&D is objective, but it's also accomidating, to a degree. Then the person isn't a necromancer as presented in the prestige classes you mentioned, he is just someone who uses lot of spells from the necromancy school. You sir, betray your narrow-minded view on this matter. A character who is concerned with the impact of what he/she does on the wider world "isn't a necromancer", but "is just someone who uses lot of spells from the necromancy school" flies like a rock with sheet-metal wings. The dread necromancer class specifically states that ...some dread necromancers manage to balance evil acts with good intentions, remaining solidly neutral (most PC dread necromancers fall into this catagory). Given that the dread necromancer is the necromancer class, and given that part of "good intentions" would not create undead that are going to be inherently harmful to others, especially when other options are available. And feeding on any life energy is just as vile. You mean, like slaughtering and eating an animal, or plucking and eating a plant, etc., which living beings do all the time? Killing something for nourishment is killing something for nourishment, something that all living beings do, save plants and plant-like single-celled organisms. Semantics games doesn't make what a vampire does any different from what a regular PHB race does. Except there hasn't been any move away from that. If anything there has been move towards it. Skeletons and zombies weren't evil before, now they are. Animate dead wasn't declared evil in the rules before, it is now. Did I not say that this wasn't a good thing? But more to the point, even though these things did happen, neutral clerics can still rebuke undead, Wee Jas still recieved the Death domain, and necromancer classes are still available to neutral characters. This is much more support than 2e offered. [qutoe]And just because a necromancer is one of the neutral alignments still doesn't make them good. In fact it strictly highlights that a necromancer can never be good.[/quote] I never said that they were good under the game, I said they were heroic. D&D supports heros of non-good alignments, which is why there is a neutral alignment on the good/evil axis, as evil characters are inherently villanous. If D&D wasn't going to offer that, then, as I said before, it would be structered more like StarWars, with a taint system for that axis. Yes I do see it. And it still shows a lack of knowledge about what was changed, or rather not changed, between 1st and 2nd ed, and makes presumptions about it based on what is in 3e. Not at all. I am aware of these changes. However, I'm talking about the game as a whole, not individual changes. Your argument is invalid due to it's scope -- it's like trying to say sociology is invalid because there are individual exceptions, or that Newtonian physics is invalid because it falls apart on a sub-atomic level. My statement, in the context of what I am reviewing, is perfectly valid. Wrong yet again. The change was made because intermediate deities didn't exist in 1st ed, they were introduced in 2nd ed. As a result, a large number of lesser deities were promoted, and a small number of greater deities demoted. How does this have anything to do with my statement? I simply said that the change made sense from a fluff standpoint. Intermediate deities didn't exist in 1e -- that's great. They were incorperated, and Wee Jas was demoted. The reason for this being that Boccob is the god of magic, as presented in the PHB, and Nerull is the god of death, as presented in the PHB. Wee Jas appeals to a more limited group of individuals based on alignment, region, and profession, so it makes sense that she wouldn't not be as powerful as deities who recieve more worship. By one theory. Not by other theories. So what you have is stating one opinion on how the deities react to changes, but not the only one. It one that is commonly used, and it is obviously one that applies to Wee Jas since she gained a new domain after protecting the souls of the Suel dead. Since we are primarily talking about Wee Jas, this incident is what matters. I did. I addressed it quite clearly. raising the dead is evil. That is the rule. Evil is for the villains, not the heroes. Which, again, is your opinion. Evil is something that villains use alot, but it is also something that D&D heroes can use. Heck, the game allows players with sleight of hand to make a living picking people's pockets. Should we ban that as well, because it's not what most people think of as heroic, and you don't like it? There's a difference between a dark hero and a villain, and it's a big one. Neutral charcters exist because there are dark heroes, characters who, for whatever reason, are flawed, like regular people, or are drawn to things that society says is evil, when there are many reasons why it would not be evil. Dark heroes still do heroic things -- they save people, they defend the innocent, etc, and these things clearly outweigh what society (or, in this instance "the game") Raising the dead may be dark, but if it was totally and completely evil, then all necromantic classes would have an alignment requirement of evil, like the assassin, blackgaurd, and ur-priest. The fact that they aren't means that while raising the dead is something that easier for evil (like selling weapons), it's not something that only has to be used for evil. As a further point, which you seem to refuse to address, is that you simply don't know what was in 1st ed, or what was changed, but you keep making assumptions about it. Assumptions that are extremely wrong. Notice how I refer to 2e Greyhawk alot, since I know more about it than I do about 1e. I am also aware of general things in 1e, like all undead being evil, etc. You attribute claims to me that I never made, such as your comment above on my statement that Wee Jas being an Intermediate deity makes sense, which takes what I said and twists it into some sort of statement about how things were in 1e, which I never commented on -- the only thing I commented on was how the change could be justified, based on a statement you made, in the way that it was presented in 3e. Point of view and opinion are not valid arguments in D&D which has a set and established alignment system. There is no "cultural relativism" in D&D. Good is good, evil is evil, heroic is heroic, and villainous is villainous. Which is quite simply a steaming pile. D&D has an objective alignment system, but it also recognizes that there are people who don't fall into such easy definitions as you like to toss around -- hence the neutral aspects of the spectrums. You can't make an argument that "good is good, evil is evil" when neutral characters use what the game considers evil to do good and vice-versa. The game even supports this! In the PHB, it says that LN, N, and CN are the best alignment becasuse ... "you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot" "it means that you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion" "it represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal". The PHB even says that there are advantages to being free from the alignment restrictions of the game in a healthy way. The only alignments it describes as being dangerous are the evil ones. And just because there are LN heroes does not mean everything allowed to the LN alignment is heroic. That is an extreme logical fallacy. No, it doesn't. However, it is quite clear that, while the game finds raising undead as being evil means, it also admits that such a means can be used for heroic ends. Given that raising undead servants is a means that doesn't hurt people, even if the game finds it unsavory, there's no reason why it couldn't, or shouldn't be something that a neutral hero can do. Then how can some be raised? The descriptions for Raise Dead, Ressurections, and True Ressurection don't allow you to raise an animated undead being -- the creature has to be destroyed first, then you can use the later two spells to raise an undead creature. However, I also seem to remember a passage that says that you can raise an undead creature if it wants to be raised, but it has to be willing. I don't remember where that is, though. I suggest you review the rules on that again. Libris Mortis, p. 7, Atrocity Calls to Unlife. Undead are powered by dark spirits. Some animating spirits can trap the spirit of the original creature in the shell, generally if the creature was evil. Elementals have souls too. Or rather, are souls. They are simply physically manifest, and destroyed completely along with their bodies. So tell me, how does that justify enslaving them to power golem? It's a rather large double standard. Some types of undead can, but don't necessarily, trap the spirit of the origional creature, and they are considered evil, and making them in considered evil. Golems, on the other hand, require the enslavement of an animating spirit, and making them is fine. Because elemental spirits are not of the same class or worth as human (and related) spirits. Oh, and just in case, there is no distinction between "spirit" and "soul" in the game. The two are identical. D&D doesn't make distinctions between based on race, type, or subtype, so unless you're saying I can go around and start randomly slaughtering, say, halflings because "they aren't the same class and/or worth as much as human spirits", then I can't start enslaving elementals, who are intelligence creatures. Of course then we get into other creature type -- what about aberration spirits? Or orc spirits? Or dragon sprits? After all that talk about "good is good, evil is evil, heroic is heroic, and villainous is villainous", taking the stance of moral of convience is rather out of place. Either violating the rights of a self-aware being is wrong, or it's not. Once we start classifying some self-aware beings as having "more worth" than others, we are definantly evil, as per the PHB states under the description of the LE alignment, "He condemns others not according to their actions, but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank." That includes condemning elemental spirits to slavery because they "are not of the same class or worth as human (and related) spirits." Because retaining a soul in that manner can serve other purposes. Such as? And no, that isn't heroic at all. It just shows that not everything not heroic is evil by default. A potato is still what it is, even if it becomes fasionable to call it a tomato. Trapping souls is trapping souls, whether you are making undead or for some other reason, and is evil all the time, unless there's a mitigating reason beyond "I said so", one that I doubt couldn't be applied to necromancy. For the same reason all fiends are supposed to be evil. And that reason would be... what? Can you give me one? Fiends are all evil because they are planar embodyments of evil given life and form. Spirits of the races of the PHB are not, so if an undead creature has the spirit it had in life, then it would have the alignment of the spirit it had in life. If that is the logical extreme, then it is hardly unrealistic. Nice how you ignored the rest of that paragraph: "My way or the high way" is no way to run a game at all, and I'm backed up by the 6 different PC alignments in the game, which all have different views. Evil classifies a specific outlook that is villianous by the game, and as I mentioned in a post earlier, by the PHB, there's nothing evil about raising an undead servant. From the framework of the neutral alignments, and as per the description of dread necromancer, a necromancer of neutral alignment, which is a heroic alignment, as a "dark hero" who balances creating and studying undeath with good intentions, which would lead one to doing good deeds, which is no different than a rogue theif who rips people off blind and balances that by doing good deeds. Backstab? What's that? I know about sneak attack, but no backstab. And how is such unheroic? Are you truely that desperate that you are forced to attack minor errors in terminology to strengthen your case? Rogues "sneak attack" to "backstab". They attack opponents who don't know they are there, or opponents who can't properly defend themselves. And how is steath unheroic? Robin Hood did a ton of sneaking and hiding, and he was quite heroic. Wow. Another good way to dodge the point. Applying exceptions when I'm talking about the general attitudes of the time is, once again, invalid. As I said, there are stories of heroic sneaks and tricksters. What you continue to ignore is that the opinon of living, breathing sneaks and trickers in the medieval era was that they were vile, cowardly creatures who couldn't face an opponent in battle, without honor or morals. Except the specific changes from the death domain to the repose domain focus on creating the undead. So obviously we are talking about a very specific ability here. Except that it butchers the actual death domain's concept, etc (you can add in all the other arguments I made above on the issue that weren't directly specifically to the undead discussion). But this isn't about just "real life" tricksters, it is about archetypes. And tricksters are a valid archetype, even in medieval stories. And nice attempt to change the standard here. If we go by that, then anyone who is a necromancer is automatically villain, as you have made clear yourself. You missed the point. My point was that, as the stories you like to point out show, there are good tricksters, despite what soceity at the time held. If we go by the standard you want to impose, we should throw out rogues, because they don't live upto the heroic standards of the time the Greyhawk is based on. If we are going to go on stories, then a story of a heroic necromancer is just as valid as a story of a heroic rogue. You pointed to it, but did you interpret it correctly? The alignments are strongly defined. Go too far and you are in another alignment. Given that I have official Wizard's canon backing me up, I'd say that I interpretted it just fine. You mean like enslaving dead souls, or desecrating bodies? I agree, let the actions speak for themselves. As I pointed out, descrating bodies is highly subjective, even in D&D. What was once a harshly enforced taboo several centuries ago is perfectly legal now (i.e. the use of bodies in medical research). What counts as "desecrating bodies" veries from culture to culture, and, as I pointed out, and which you ignore, is that Wee Jas wouldn't condone creating undead in a way that was considered desecrating the undead in the region it was in. As for enslaving souls, not all undead enslave souls, and we have quite a double standard here that is reaching the lawful evil end of the spectrum on when enslaving souls is or is not evil. I'd also imagine that a necromancer could strike a bargain with a soul for a term of service, if a soul were to be used in the creation of an undead being, which could easily be emulated with the Undead Leadership feat. Not stereotypes, archetypes. And the game is in fact defined by archetypes. Archetypes become stereotypes when, as you seem to be doing, they are assume to apply to all situations. That is an essential element of the design and the overall experience. As long as it isn't taken to the extreme so that it becomes a stereotype, which you are doing rather quickly (and yes, having 99.9% of undead as evil is beyond archetypical). The game is not about moral relativism. You are not a hero just because you can justify whatever evil act you committed. Slaughtering a hundred to save a thousand is evil, no matter how you phase it. No it's not. However, slaughtering a hundred to save a thousand is irrevocably evil by the rules of the game. Being a necromancer, on the otherhand, is not irrevocably evil by the rules of the game. Nor is "But I am role-playing!" an absolute defense or justification. That was part of the problem with Wastri allowed as a deity. Does that suddenly constitute justification to act in a blatantly racist manner just because you can "justify" it by saying you help humans at certain times? The answer is a very resounding "NO!" Except that Wastri allows behavior that is blantanly evil. Indeed, what he practices and preaches should make him evil, since that sort of racism is specifically LE behavior. The PHB's alignment descriptions clearly places on greatest portion of its weight on how you treat people. Wastri is a racist deity who murders others he believes is inferior, and his clerics could use this to justify treating non-humans in an racist, and thus evil, fasion. Necromancers do things that are macabre and "distasteful". There's nothing inherent to necromancy that forces the necromancer to treat others in an evil way. You don't even have to desecrate the dead to be a necromancer -- no one's going to complain that you raised an Ogre as a skeleton. It's an invalid comparison. Except you couldn't use detect evil like that in AD&D, so how could it be such a stereotype? What AD&D PHB were you useing? It could be done, multiple times, by the text description for the spell. It was also supported by the massive stereotyping in the game. Detect Evil became the icon for hack 'n slash play. In fact the game has moved away towards allowing that, rather than requiring actual effort to determine if someone is evil by their actions. Not really. 3e is less restrictive in its alignment requirements than previous editions, and Eberron actually makes it so where sometimes, the guy that pings on the detect evil radar is the guy who is going to help you out. As for "roll playing" do you wish to put that up against "amateur theatrics"? Or put "black & white" up against "evil angst"? Those are equally harsh stereotypes. And they both equally have their elements of truth. Fixing the problems that give rise to such stereotypes is a good option here, not simply pointing out that all games have their flaws Except cultural bias doesn't determine alignment, the alignment system does. When you bring up desecrating the dead, which is modified so heavily by cultural standards as to what this entails, then it does become a bit more subjective than D&D normally does. That two good nations can still wind up at war does not negate that alignment system in any way, rather it validates its utiity and comprehensiveness. No, but when two good nations end up at war, it does mean that those nations aren't as heroic as labelling them "good" implies. Since we are dealing with heroes, not "good characters", then perhaps that means that some other things that many assumptions are made about based on labels don't quite apply either.
Samwise 03-01-06, 01:00 PM	[And as I said, by your estimation. You seem quite willing to restrict player options for your enjoyment of the game, which is a very inconsiderate choice to make. No, as a simpe reality. As I said, someone might think killing all the others players at the table is "fun" and "role-playing" but that doesn't make their opinion particularly worthwhile. I never said they were. However, Wee Jas is a goddess of death and magic. Death + Magic = Necromancy. Necromancers make undead. That is a massive logical fallacy. 1) Undead have no souls. This is, I belive, the 3rd time I posted this. How many times are you going to ignore it? I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it is wrong. 2) The death domain has no association with undead, which you said. Death Domain Spells 1 Cause Fear 2 Death Knell 3 Animate Dead 4 Death Ward 5 Slay Living 6 Create Undead 7 Destruction 8 Create Greater Undead 9 Wail of the Banshee One-third of the spells create undead. No association? The Undeath domain has Control Undead in addition to the three undead creation spells. Only one more! No association? I did. Read the Libris Mortis, one of the many sections scattered around the game referencing the undead. They are mindless, and souless, which would lead one to believe they wouldn't have an intelligence score, but I guess that little blip in continuity got passed the editors. And yet all through Libris Mortis we see reference to "spirits" animating dead bodies. Over and over again, "evil spirits" "reanimating spirits" "dark spirits" Oh, and while raise dead doesn't work: - Cannot be treturned to existed by raise dead or reincarnate. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect only willing undead, but these spells turn undead back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead. You sir, betray your narrow-minded view on this matter. A character who is concerned with the impact of what he/she does on the wider world "isn't a necromancer", but "is just someone who uses lot of spells from the necromancy school" flies like a rock with sheet-metal wings. The dread necromancer class specifically states that And you betray your own argument. First and foremost, the dread necromancer is NOT the necromancer class any more than the warmage is the evoker class. Second, players can not be dread necromancers, so by that reasoning there is no need for the death domain anyway. How does this have anything to do with my statement? I simply said that the change made sense from a fluff standpoint. Intermediate deities didn't exist in 1e -- that's great. They were incorperated, and Wee Jas was demoted. The reason for this being that Boccob is the god of magic, as presented in the PHB, and Nerull is the god of death, as presented in the PHB. Wee Jas appeals to a more limited group of individuals based on alignment, region, and profession, so it makes sense that she wouldn't not be as powerful as deities who recieve more worship. Except Wee Jas, Boccob, and Nerull didn't appear in either the 1st ed or 2nd ed AD&D PHB. Which means that couldn't be the reason. You keep projecting 3E elements into previous changes without any basis. That demonstrates both your lack of knowledge of the history and evolution of the rules, as well as the reasons for them. Which, again, is your opinion. Evil is something that villains use alot, but it is also something that D&D heroes can use. Evil is not appropriate for D&D heroes to use, particularly in the LG campaign. And what happened to you not saying that evil was heroic? You keep trying to change your standards for such. Notice how I refer to 2e Greyhawk alot, since I know more about it than I do about 1e. And yet you don't seem to get those references correct. Or numerous rules references. Or when various rules changed. D&D has an objective alignment system, but it also recognizes that there are people who don't fall into such easy definitions as you like to toss around -- hence the neutral aspects of the spectrums. That would be true if - Neutral wasn't an alignment of its own. But if you wish to be pedantic: Good is good, evil is evil, neutral is neutral, lawful is lawful, chaotic is chaotic, heroic is heroic, and villainous is villainous. No, it doesn't. However, it is quite clear that, while the game finds raising undead as being evil means, it also admits that such a means can be used for heroic ends. It does? Where? D&D doesn't make distinctions between based on race, type, or subtype, so unless you're saying I can go around and start randomly slaughtering, say, halflings because "they aren't the same class and/or worth as much as human spirits", then I can't start enslaving elementals, who are intelligence creatures. It does within the alignment system. Animating the dead is evil. Animating golems is not. Fiends are all evil because they are planar embodyments of evil given life and form. Spirits of the races of the PHB are not, so if an undead creature has the spirit it had in life, then it would have the alignment of the spirit it had in life. Not if it warped by its death, or tainted by negative energy. Rogues "sneak attack" to "backstab". They attack opponents who don't know they are there, or opponents who can't properly defend themselves. And? So now claiming a flanking bonus is evil? And you say I am harsh! Except that Wastri allows behavior that is blantanly evil. Indeed, what he practices and preaches should make him evil, since that sort of racism is specifically LE behavior. You mean like necromancy? What AD&D PHB were you useing? It could be done, multiple times, by the text description for the spell. It was also supported by the massive stereotyping in the game. Detect Evil became the icon for hack 'n slash play. The printed one. This spell discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the caseof the reverse spell, from any creature, object, or area. Character alignment, however, is revealed only unusual circumstances: character who are strongly aligned, who do not stray from their faith, and who are of at least 9th level might radiate good or evil if intent upon appropriate actions. That is the first paragraph of the spell description in my 2nd ed AD&D PHB. page 199, the priest version of the spell, italics included in the text. I am well aware that spell was often used incorrectly, but the text is quite clear. The text was somewhat different in the 1st ed AD&D PHB, and had to be supplemented by additional information in the 1st ed AD&D DMG, but combined they said the exact same thing: You had to be name level, thoroughly devoted to your alignment and faith, and intent upon specific actions. So unless all villains wandered the streets plotting naughtiness, your "Evildar" simply wouldn't work, and the only stereotype revealed here is that of people who either didn't know the rules, or who changed them for their game.
Arvagor 03-01-06, 01:27 PM	Animating the dead is evil.Then how do we get Lawful Neutral mummys, or Neutral Good ghosts (Both of which I have encountered in LG)? I'll grant that the latter cannot result from casting animate undead, but if you're looking for instances of undead != evil in the core books (i.e., not the "Deathless" type), both of those creatures should suffice. Animating golems is not.In other words, enslaving a spirit to animate a once dead body is evil in your book, but apparently enslaving an sentient elemental spirit is not? From the description of golems in the MM: "The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem’s creator." "Unwilling" implies free will, i.e. sentience and intelligence. In a home game, I would definitely rule that golem creation is an evil process, but we don't have that option in LG... So now claiming a flanking bonus is evil? And you say I am harsh!The paladins in my region would agree with that ;). Personally, I look at it this way... My rogue has never struck from the shadows; with an Int of 14, it is his years of studying that lets him know exactly where to hit creatures to cause the most damage (unlike the BDFs who just like to smash everything they come across)...
Samwise 03-01-06, 01:38 PM	Then how do we get Lawful Neutral mummys, or Neutral Good ghosts (Both of which I have encountered in LG)? I'll grant that the latter cannot result from casting animate undead, but if you're looking for instances of undead != evil in the core books (i.e., not the "Deathless" type), both of those creatures should suffice. Ghosts are self-animating spirits, and can be of any alignment. Mummies are likewise capable of self-animation, or may willingly embrace the status to serve as tomb guardians. In that case the inherent evil of animating a spirit with negative energy is forgiven by whatever deity enabled the Lawful Neutral cleric to create it. That is a very limited exception. In other words, enslaving a spirit to animate a once dead body is evil in your book, but apparently enslaving an sentient elemental spirit is not? From the description of golems in the MM: "The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem’s creator." "Unwilling" implies free will, i.e. sentience and intelligence. In a home game, I would definitely rule that golem creation is an evil process, but we don't have that option in LG... You make a valid point. Perhaps the process of creating a golem should be revised to add an evil component to it. The paladins in my region would agree with that ;). Personally, I look at it this way... My rogue has never struck from the shadows; with an Int of 14, it is his years of studying that lets him know exactly where to hit creatures to cause the most damage (unlike the BDFs who just like to smash everything they come across)... And there you have it. The trickster-rogue is quite possible without the sneak attack ability being of dubious morality. Mind you, I've got my anachronistic preference for calling it the "thief" class, but that doesn't make it inherently un- or anti-heroic.
CSHunt68 03-01-06, 01:46 PM	My Radiant Servant of Pelor would destroy any undead possessed / created / used by any "fellow" PC, on sight. I would not attempt to come up with a good roleplaying reason to avoid doing it.
rutrow424 03-01-06, 03:39 PM	The Living Greyhawk campaign is about being a hero. Not an anti-hero. Not a protagonist. A hero. Bold and up front, reluctant, noble, farmboy, or whatever in-between. But not being overtly evil and just fighting against evil, or a callous mercenary who just wants to get paid, or whatever else that isn't being a hero. Being a hero. Accomodating non-heroic archetypes in such a campaign is a diminishment of that stated purpose, and a loss of the spirit of the campaign. Too much such accommodating has been done. I opposed it then, I oppose it now. Evil is not appropriate for D&D heroes to use, particularly in the LG campaign. Sam, I always respect your knowledge of LG and of DnD, but I have to differ with you on these 2 quotes from separate posts, which I feel bring too much opinion to the discussion. LG and DnD at its simplest both work easier (some may say better) if the PCs are heroes in the classic sense. You rescue the princess because it is the right thing to do, or you stop the rampaging orcs because defending the townsfolk is the right thing to do. There may be a header on the website somewhere that describes LG as an heroic campaign, but it has never been run completely in that manner. DnD allows for a varied experience that certainly incorporates the anti-hero. Treatment of the dead specifically is different from culture to culture, and a society where mindless undead are ok has been written at least a couple of times in settings. In the early days of LG, one of the big debates I remember was on some level whether we were dumbing down GH into a strictly heroic campaign. I won't dare debate GH canon, but the main movers and shakers in GH, the Circle of Eight and its predecessor, were not "good" but a neutral group that did mostly good things (individuals might be good, but Mordy was certainly not). The LGG and recent core mods have raised legitimate concerns over the accepted truth of the start and end of the GH wars. At least 1 of the original mods for the campaign (River of Blood) had questionable material and was meant to create a semblance of moral dilemma for PCs. Mods all along have offered "greater good" choices meant to do the same. Such "greyness" can create a more realistic and enriching RP experience, and is a matter of opinion that would differ from yours apparently. More specific to LG is how the Circle rules tailor the campaign. The easy answer is that LG supports for the most part non-heroic PCs. The LGCS allows pick pocketing between mods, allows casting evil spells (per normal DnD rules), and allows neutral PCs at all. The fact that Pale Masters are a limited PrC gives hope to those who like to think the option is at least a possibility, however far-fetched or unlikely. Poison is not banned, clerics could command undead - the list is endless. Most mods offer a mercenary hook to allow more PCs to realistically participate. There are no specific guidleines for evil actions, or for removing PCs who commit them. They may prefer your heroic model, but have not done much to prevent those with a different view from playing too. As for the domain question - I do think repose is appropriate for Wee Jas given what we know, but am disappointed that the death domain has been removed from play for PCs. It's not a big loss (domain power is the same, spell changes have little real impact on the campaign), and I understand the decision.
Ancillary 03-01-06, 06:43 PM	To Rutrow, the initial point of this post was to celebrate the return of the death domain in lgcs 5.0. So let your disappointment wash away. I do think greyhawk is a heroic campaign, but it does not restrict the heroes. While a paladin wanders around being a hero, a lawful neutral necromancer is just as heroic when that character is the one that saves the march. Indeed the necromancer could be a loyal citizen of the march who put their life on the line for no reward except its continued safety. In other words it is the actions that make the hero, not the alignment/class. And if one of the heroes raises one of the evil warlord's outer chamber guards to be used as a meat shield against the warlord himself, I do not believe many of the peasantry or nobles would be complaining. While the animate dead spells are labled evil in the PHB, morally speaking raising them is no worse than making a construct, or even summoning a creature. It is true that the celestial riding dog will not die on the material plane, but it might not enjoy the pain of being bitten to death tanking the rat swarm. I have no problem with the game mechanic of the raise dead spells being evil, but I am glad that in LG guiding morality it is still a legal choice for heros. As for the RSoP who would turn the necromancer's undead without extunating circumstances, that is exceptionally bad sportsmanship. It is no different than drinking one of their potions or sundering their weapon. If you are at a table and do not feel comfortable about undead, you should leave. It would be the same if you were an elf whose parents had been killed by half-orcs. A character can hate half-orcs, but if he then would not heal another player character for that reason, he should not play with them. With all the different in-game races, nationalities, and religions characters can have, it is very possible a table will turn up with two foes pitted against each other. But in LG you need to think of in-character reasons to cooperate and have a fun game, or you should leave.
opa 03-01-06, 06:54 PM	Well if the RSOP was from Bissel, he wouldn't have to necromancy is outlawed in Bissel, he could just wait for the guards..
Ancillary 03-01-06, 11:07 PM	It is of course important to keep a low profile in some regions. A skellie or two is not worth getting thrown in jail. Even in Bissel, though, there are plenty of mods that are away from civilization where there is no real chance of guards showing up.
Samwise 03-02-06, 12:29 AM	Sam, I always respect your knowledge of LG and of DnD, but I have to differ with you on these 2 quotes from separate posts, which I feel bring too much opinion to the discussion. . . . There may be a header on the website somewhere that describes LG as an heroic campaign, but it has never been run completely in that manner.. That would be in the LGCS. There is one mention of "anti-hero", but check the number of times it uses "hero" and "heroic." Also note the first time it appears, where it specifically excludes playing the villain. I'd say that pretty much makes it a heroic campaign for heroes. In the early days of LG, one of the big debates I remember was on some level whether we were dumbing down GH into a strictly heroic campaign. I won't dare debate GH canon, but the main movers and shakers in GH, the Circle of Eight and its predecessor, were not "good" but a neutral group that did mostly good things (individuals might be good, but Mordy was certainly not). Those debates still go on in reference to the nature of LG. If you'd like my full rebuttal to that, head down to the GH folder and do a search "Gray in the Hawk" to see my response to that argument. What it comes down to is that while Mordenkainen is Neutral, he is just a single high level character. He is not the be all end all definition of the campaign as Elminster is for FR. Nor do his actions define the character of the campaign, and push it towards Neutrality. On the contrary, an examination of the various adventures shows a very significant bias towards Good, and for a very good (as it were reason) - that is how it was designed. The LGG and recent core mods have raised legitimate concerns over the accepted truth of the start and end of the GH wars. Which I can not discuss. (For the obvious reasons.) At least 1 of the original mods for the campaign (River of Blood) had questionable material and was meant to create a semblance of moral dilemma for PCs. Mods all along have offered "greater good" choices meant to do the same. Such "greyness" can create a more realistic and enriching RP experience, and is a matter of opinion that would differ from yours apparently. Yes and no. Some of the other more recent choices have gone the opposite way, being a major turn off for many players, who felt they were being forced into working with overtly Evil forces, completely against the nature of their characters. And that is one of the difficulties in designing a campaign that allows for a full range of moral and ethical choices - at some point, you wind up introducing Evil patrons, which absolutely excludes most Good heroes from the adventure. That is, for many reasons, unacceptable. More specific to LG is how the Circle rules tailor the campaign. The easy answer is that LG supports for the most part non-heroic PCs. . . . They may prefer your heroic model, but have not done much to prevent those with a different view from playing too. And to a certain point that is fine. But there must be a limit. And I feel that limit has been reached, and indeed exceeded, in the last year or two, and it is time to start pulling back, and reasserting the heroic base of the game in general, and the setting in particular.
opa 03-02-06, 02:00 AM	I don't know how many times I've been at a table where it took 25 minutes for the other players and the judge to find a way to justify to the paladin at the table its ok to work for the evil leader of the ( insert scarlet brotherhood/north kingdom/etc here) I myself would have pulled out of a mod last year morally if it wouldn't have brought the table to 3 players, and travelled 2 hours to play.... definately need more warning in the blurbs if they are gonna continue this practice
kjenks 03-02-06, 08:14 AM	I don't know how many times I've been at a table where it took 25 minutes for the other players and the judge to find a way to justify to the paladin at the table its ok to work for the evil leader of the ( insert scarlet brotherhood/north kingdom/etc here) The judge messed up. When I'm playing or preparing to DM, I think about the plot hooks and how they'd work with some of the different character types (paladin, mercenary, thrill-seekers, knowledge-seekers). And I tailor the adventure to my player's style, as the LGCS requires of all DMs (pages 52-53). We had one now-retired Bandit Kingdoms mod where a doppleganger was posing as a human thief. The plot hook (as written) had him trying to get the PCs to steal a book for him from the home of an evil woman. Because one of the PCs was a paladin, I knew this hook would be problematic -- partly because I played my rogue/paladin in the same scenario a month or two earlier. So I tailored the scenario: instead of the doppleganger impersonating a thief and commissioning a theft, he impersonated a well-known regional do-gooder who needed the book from the evil woman's house to promote a scheme against the evil overlords. Now THAT was a plot that a BK paladin could sink his teeth into. It had moral conflict and adventure, but it promoted the cause of good over evil in the end. The party swallowed the plot hook (and they didn't even recognize the dopp). I could easily do this within the spirit of the story (dopp read their minds and determined the best way to convince them) and within the rules. I'm sad to hear that your DM had such a hard time in similar circumstances. Here are some things a DM could do. (1) Insert a good-aligned NPC into the scenario who approaches the do-gooder PCs and asks them to work with the evil guys for the greater good. This NPC explains the quest and how this temporary alliance with the (insert evil group here) will benefit the (insert good group here) because the good group also wants to perform the same quest, but for a different reason: (insert logical-seeming plot implication here). Then the PC party can go in to meet the evil group with a different point of view. Instead of just being here to help the evil group (a questionable character motivation for a good character), they're here to perform the quest for the (insert good group here) and, as a side benefit, get some extra loot for performing the very same quest for the evil group. (2) Change the negotiation strategy of the (evil group). Instead of just reading the boxed text, (the evil leader) says something like, "I know that you are, feh, heroes, and I know that you and I normally would not see eye to eye on this situation, but here's how our temprarary alliance will benefit both of us: (insert somewhat convincing argument here)." (3) Add in a proxy. One of the problems that we run across is that the party is given a quest by a group of evil people and it's hard to come up with a really good reason why the PCs would ever meet with that group without kicking some evil butt or would accept a quest from the evil group. So have an NPC party act as a proxy. The proxy party accepts the quest from the evil group, intending to make things come out well for the forces of good. But this proxy NPC party is underpowered for the quest. The PC party comes across the proxy party being defeated by the mandatory thug encounter (which is often what encounter 1 turns out to be). The PCs beat up the thugs and talk to the proxy party. The proxy party explains the quest as best they can, then the proxy party bows out, leaving the clues and adventuring to the PCs while the proxy party slinks off to heal up and raise their dead party members. (3a) As a variation on (3), since one of the PCs is probably a cleric, have the bloodied and battered proxy party come to him for healing. Then the proxy party can "confess" to the cleric that they took on this quest, but it seems that they got in way over their heads, and they'd like to find a competent group of adventurers to complete the quest. As the wise old sage El Geaciess once said, "Remember, the PCs are the heroes (or anti-heroes) of the story. Allow them to act. Give them leeway choose their actions in the game. This flexibility does not mean you let them do anything they want; it simply means that they are playing the game to have fun so let them have fun."
CSHunt68 03-02-06, 08:49 AM	As for the RSoP who would turn the necromancer's undead without extunating circumstances, that is exceptionally bad sportsmanship. It is no different than drinking one of their potions or sundering their weapon. If you are at a table and do not feel comfortable about undead, you should leave. It would be the same if you were an elf whose parents had been killed by half-orcs. A character can hate half-orcs, but if he then would not heal another player character for that reason, he should not play with them. With all the different in-game races, nationalities, and religions characters can have, it is very possible a table will turn up with two foes pitted against each other. But in LG you need to think of in-character reasons to cooperate and have a fun game, or you should leave. I disagree. Using undead is sufficiently beyond the pale, and definitely viewed as _inherently evil_ in enough places around Oerth, that I wouldn't have a problem with it. I thought I made it clear that there are _other_ circumstances where I would find roleplaying reasons for a PC to adventure with another whom he would otherwise not associate with. This is certainly expected behaviour. I do not consider the use of undead to be among those situations. I am not OBLIGED to rationalize the morality of EVERY play situation. Perhaps a PC has a cohort whom he's designed as a twelve year-old boy and uses him as a trapspringer, damage sponge, and equipment cart (or other reprehensible options). I'm not necessarily OBLIGED to sit there and "get along". At some point, there is an onus on the player to design a PC who will get along with the rest of the LG community, without expecting everyone else to bend over backwards to justify the situation. I would say that THAT was the "bad sportsmanship", sir.
CSHunt68 03-02-06, 08:50 AM	Well if the RSOP was from Bissel, he wouldn't have to necromancy is outlawed in Bissel, he could just wait for the guards.. He wouldn't wait. ;) But, I'll quote from the LGCS: "In the Living Greyhawk campaign, we expect that you conduct yourself in a manner suitable to group cooperation and enjoyment. Specifically, Players: Contribute to the fun of the whole group. Don't play in a style that detracts from the fun of the game." There certainly is a MUTUAL obligation between players whose characters don't get along to find some common ground. This only goes so far. If you play in a campaign RIFE with characters who don't tolerate undead, perhaps the onus is on YOU to find a table where you might just fit in ...
Ancillary 03-02-06, 12:35 PM	Luckily, LG is not rife with undead haters. (although the emergence of RSoP or its equvilents definitely made a bump). Personal play experience has shown me that the players who even care are quite small. Normal players don't notice, power gamers don't care because it is a weak thing to do, so only the more role of the role players care. Of those it is only the ones who have a character who dislike undead that are a mismatch. All but one of them has accepted it with grace. Most of them say "I'll keep an eye on you" and they do indeed vow to destroy any undead that appear. They do it after the module is over,though, which does not bother anyone. It is not even a roleplaying stretch. The situation is you find yourself partied with a necromancer who you know is a generally decent sort. No undead around. Then in the middle of the dungeon, some ogres you just killed become undead. Not good. But your choice is to kill them now, or go into the next room and save the princess. Since you know the undead are not going to run away, rescuing the princess comes first. After that is done the undead are destroyed. The key is to give the character a clear choice between destroying undead and prosecuting the mission. While I believe most necromancers dream of having a small undead army at their beck and call, the above approach does not step on toes much and has worked well.
Samwise 03-02-06, 12:43 PM	It is not even a roleplaying stretch. The situation is you find yourself partied with a necromancer who you know is a generally decent sort. No undead around. Then in the middle of the dungeon, some ogres you just killed become undead. Not good. But your choice is to kill them now, or go into the next room and save the princess. Since you know the undead are not going to run away, rescuing the princess comes first. After that is done the undead are destroyed. The key is to give the character a clear choice between destroying undead and prosecuting the mission. And just like the paladin who turns his back while the prisoners are tortured, I'd slap a faith and alignment violation on a cleric, particularly a Radiant Servant, doing that. Which would in fact make it an extreme role-playing stretch to get an advantage of convenience. It is undead. Kill it.
Objulen 03-02-06, 01:34 PM	No, as a simpe reality. As I said, someone might think killing all the others players at the table is "fun" and "role-playing" but that doesn't make their opinion particularly worthwhile. And, again, as I pointed out, your position ignores the canon of the game. A player who thinks that is fun and rping to kill other players at the table is going to be evil. That is a massive logical fallacy. In what fasion? It's nice how you say something is a logical fallicy, but offer no reason for why it is a logical fallicy. If you wish me to take your arguments into consideration, you need to state more than opinions. Wee Jas is a goddess of death. She is also a goddess of magic. The magic of death is necromancy, and necromancers make undead. It is quite plausible for a large number of necromancers to worship Wee Jas, and for Wee Jas to, in turn, "lay down the law" on the art of necromancy. I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it is wrong. Then open up the Libris Mortis. Most undead do not have souls. And simply saying something is wrong without making any effort to show how it is wrong is just about the same things as ignoring it. Death Domain Spells 1 Cause Fear 2 Death Knell 3 Animate Dead 4 Death Ward 5 Slay Living 6 Create Undead 7 Destruction 8 Create Greater Undead 9 Wail of the Banshee One-third of the spells create undead. No association? The Undeath domain has Control Undead in addition to the three undead creation spells. Only one more! No association? Perhaps having so many undead creation spells in the Death domain does not fit the domain, but death is not simply creating undead. Thematically speaking, it is obvious that the death domain is not associated with undeath, since that has its own domain! Obviously, undeath and death are related, but they are two different domains for a reason. Repose, on the other hand, is simply a sub-catagory of the death domain, which really has no purpose except for the aforementioned "death is eeeeeeevil" standard. And yet all through Libris Mortis we see reference to "spirits" animating dead bodies. Over and over again, "evil spirits" "reanimating spirits" "dark spirits" Which aren't the origional spirits of the host for those undead who do have souls. CD, p. 125, "Some creature types don't have souls and simply cease to exist when they die. Constructs just fall apart, for example. Undead creatures likewise cease to exist, although destroying and undead creature sometimes frees a soul trapped within it (as described below)." emphasis mine. Oh, and while raise dead doesn't work: - Cannot be treturned to existed by raise dead or reincarnate. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect only willing undead, but these spells turn undead back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead. Did you bother to read what I posted when you made this comment? The descriptions for Raise Dead, Ressurections, and True Ressurection don't allow you to raise an animated undead being -- the creature has to be destroyed first, then you can use the later two spells to raise an undead creature. However, I also seem to remember a passage that says that you can raise an undead creature if it wants to be raised, but it has to be willing. I don't remember where that is, though. Emphasis mine. And you betray your own argument. First and foremost, the dread necromancer is NOT the necromancer class any more than the warmage is the evoker class. Only if you misunderstood what I meant. The dread necromancer class turns the character into a lich, enhances undead creation, grants rebuke undead and has mostly necromancy spells. It is the quitenssential necromancer class, just like the warmage is the quintessential evoker class, the logical conclusion of specilization. Semantics games won't win you any points. And necromancers (i.e. the specialist wizards) can create undead, so that's a moot point anyway. Second, players can not be dread necromancers, so by that reasoning there is no need for the death domain anyway. Which had nothing to do with objection in the first place, which had to do with butchering my character concept, the repose domain being a subcatagory of the death domain that existed only because of the sterilization of death gods, the fact that even if it wasn't an explicit reason, the death domain was changed because of an underlying sentiment that wants the game sterilized (which you demonstrated wonderfully, I might add), and that it was, quite frankly, wrong to strip charcters of the death domain entirely while offering no recourse at all to change to a different god to save a character concept based on that domain. As I pointed out above, no players' sword weilding follower of Heironeous was hosed by giving Herioneous axe as a favored weapon, nor were any players for Pholotus or St. Cuthbert by the change to their alignments. If at least one non-evil deity had the death domain still, I could change gods and keep my character, but I wasn't even offered that option. You were the one who brought up the True Necromancer PrC to begin with, so you opened that can of worms, and whether or not these classes are allowed to PCs in LG doesn't change the fact that Wizards of the Coast intended them for PC use, as heroic characters, since they can be non-evil alignments. Except Wee Jas, Boccob, and Nerull didn't appear in either the 1st ed or 2nd ed AD&D PHB. Which means that couldn't be the reason. Except that you ignore that in 1e and 2e, Greyhawk had it's own core campaign book. It was later subsumed by the game in general, I'd imagine, so players and DMs had a baseline of material to use for their games, and to help establish things like having non-evil PC necromantic characters (notice how the god used for thieves isn't evil, either). You keep projecting 3E elements into previous changes without any basis. That demonstrates both your lack of knowledge of the history and evolution of the rules, as well as the reasons for them. No, I keep projecting 3E elements as presented in the PHB, and interpret them from there. I build my character based on 3E before I started to learn anything about Greyhawk outside of that book and other generic supplements available at the time, so I'd imagine quite a few other players did so as well (I can imagine there will be conversations with DMs not to similar to this debate). I'm simply assuming that Wizards had a reason for choosing the gods they did and presenting them in the fasion they did. While I didn't know anything at all about the history or evolution of the setting at the time (I played 2e, I know how the rules transformed, despite what you may think), Wizards did when they made 3e and used Greyhawk for the default setting. If you have something to complain about, take it up with them, because I'm just going by official canon on the subject. Evil is not appropriate for D&D heroes to use, particularly in the LG campaign. And what happened to you not saying that evil was heroic? You keep trying to change your standards for such. It depends on what we are going to use as "evil". If you notice, I said, for the most part, "what the game considers evil". The question on if necromancy and undeath should be evil is an ongoing debate because it's pure fantasy, so the only reason that it would be considered evil would be because the game portrays it that way, by what amounts to DM fiat. There are several arguments for why this is flawed. Heroic characters can do evil -- that's why there's neutral characters and evil characters. Hence the making your living picking pockets between adventures that certain characters can use. The PHB clearly delinates the standard of what makes a character who does some evil a neutral hero or an evil villain to be based on how they treat people; a character who respects other people's basic rights, and helps them on occasion, can easily be a neutral hero even if he/she does something that the world considers evil, like robbing people of their worldly possessions, or something that the game considers evil, like necromancy. And yet you don't seem to get those references correct. Or numerous rules references. Or when various rules changed. Since I don't have any of the books, I can only go off of setting materials on the forums and as presented by LG from earlier times. I know more than I used to, but I never claimed any great amount of knowledge about the LG setting in 2e. I refered to the general handling of rules and portrayal of certain subjects in 2e, which includes Greyhawk in this, such as the portrayal of undead and necromancers, as Greyhawk is one of the more stereotypical settings. For example, I did not know that Wee Jas was opposed to making undead in 2e. However, given that information, I offered a reason for why it could have changed between 2e and 3e, which is a decision Wizard's made in 3e PHB, which is what I built my character around, which comes to a core reason for my objection. As I said, it's not so much that Wee Jas recieved the Death domain as every non-evil deity had their death domain replaced with the repose domain. I might as well rip up my character sheet, because my character really isn't the one I made anymore. That would be true if - Neutral wasn't an alignment of its own. But if you wish to be pedantic: Good is good, evil is evil, neutral is neutral, lawful is lawful, chaotic is chaotic, heroic is heroic, and villainous is villainous. You say I'm being pedantic? You're bordering on being intentially obtuse. If netural wasn't it's only alignment, the alignment defined as being between good and evil, or law and chaos, then there wouldn't be neutral. There would be good and evil, and law and chaos, and no middle ground, i.e. black and white. Either the game has a neutral alignment or it doesn't. Stating that fact is not an issue. As for your list, D&D defines neutral as a heroic alignment, so a neutral necromancer is heroic, even if that neutral character performs unheroic acts at times. It does? Where? As I stated above, Heroes of Horror, p. 85, under the description of alignment for the Dread Necromancer, the necromancer class (speaking of pedantic, who was doing that in that little blurb about "the Dread Necromancer isn't the necromancer class"?), ...but some dread necromancers manage to balance evil acts with good intentions, remaining solidly neutral (most PC dread necromancers fall into this catagory). "balancing evil acts with good intentions" can easily mean "using undead minnions to help people." It does within the alignment system. Animating the dead is evil. Animating golems is not. However, since you stated the reason for necromancy as being evil is due to the fact that it enslaves souls, when enslaving souls isn't evil, it does defeat that argument. And you have little room to speak of concerning the alignment system when you are quite willing to ban characters who are legal under that alignment system because they don't fit your standards of heroism. Not if it warped by its death, or tainted by negative energy. Assuming that death would warp a soul, or that negative energy would. Given that we are dealing with fantasy, there's no reason for that conclusion within the generality that it is assumed to have. It also doesn't make any sense because positive energy, the energy of life, doesn't "warp" creature toward being good. And? So now claiming a flanking bonus is evil? And you say I am harsh! Are you truely that desperate to defend your position that you need to intentionally misinterperet what I say to bolster your arguments? I don't believe that flanking is evil. I never said that I did. Once again, you need to go back and read the actual post. You mean like necromancy? Except that necromancy is not listed as being specifically evil in the PHB under the alignments. Applied neromancy leads to neutral or evil alignments. Applied racism is wholly evil. Thus, it is not like necromancy, is not necromancy is not nearly as evil. The printed one. This spell discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the caseof the reverse spell, from any creature, object, or area. Character alignment, however, is revealed only unusual circumstances: character who are strongly aligned, who do not stray from their faith, and who are of at least 9th level might radiate good or evil if intent upon appropriate actions. That is the first paragraph of the spell description in my 2nd ed AD&D PHB. page 199, the priest version of the spell, italics included in the text. Given the number of times that I've seen players rightly use the "emanations of evil..from any character" to find an evil characters, this distinction has such a small practical difference that it is basically moot. I am well aware that spell was often used incorrectly, but the text is quite clear. The text was somewhat different in the 1st ed AD&D PHB, and had to be supplemented by additional information in the 1st ed AD&D DMG, but combined they said the exact same thing: You had to be name level, thoroughly devoted to your alignment and faith, and intent upon specific actions. So unless all villains wandered the streets plotting naughtiness, your "Evildar" simply wouldn't work, and the only stereotype revealed here is that of people who either didn't know the rules, or who changed them for their game. It did work quite well for this in 2e, since evil characters, especially very evil ones, emanated strong evil, even if it didn't tell your their alignment. Quite effective "evildar". Personally, I like the 1e version you describe better, but the text is that clear on the 2e version. It can be interpretted either way, and I suspect that part of the reason that it became even more explicitly like evidar in 3e than it was in 2e had something to do with the fact that Detect Evil was interpreted as evildar by many players in 2e.
Objulen 03-02-06, 01:46 PM	There certainly is a MUTUAL obligation between players whose characters don't get along to find some common ground. This only goes so far. If you play in a campaign RIFE with characters who don't tolerate undead, perhaps the onus is on YOU to find a table where you might just fit in ... Then again, the opposite would be true.
Objulen 03-02-06, 01:49 PM	And just like the paladin who turns his back while the prisoners are tortured, I'd slap a faith and alignment violation on a cleric, particularly a Radiant Servant, doing that. Which would in fact make it an extreme role-playing stretch to get an advantage of convenience. It is undead. Kill it. And then the cleric gets restrained by the rest of the party that isn't so fanatical? Pelor may not like undead, but I'd imagine that he'd say that people come first (i.e. saving the princess) to undeath crusades.
Samwise 03-02-06, 02:08 PM	And, again, as I pointed out, your position ignores the canon of the game. A player who thinks that is fun and rping to kill other players at the table is going to be evil. And? It is still an opinion. And according to you, no opinion is of less worth than any other. So it should still be allowed in a game. In what fasion? It's nice how you say something is a logical fallicy, but offer no reason for why it is a logical fallicy. If you wish me to take your arguments into consideration, you need to state more than opinions. Because you haven't proven that "death + magic = necromancy." Becauce you haven't proven that "necromancy = creating undead." Because both are contradicted by material in the rules, specifically the existence of spells that kill without being necromancy, death that is caused without magic, necromancer archetypes that don't create undead, and necromancy spells that do not in fact create undead. You have presumed conclusions without proving the facts, and by denying the other possibilities. Then open up the Libris Mortis. Most undead do not have souls. Too bad it doesn't say that. And simply saying something is wrong without making any effort to show how it is wrong is just about the same things as ignoring it. I did show how you are wrong. Perhaps having so many undead creation spells in the Death domain does not fit the domain, but death is not simply creating undead. Thematically speaking, it is obvious that the death domain is not associated with undeath, since that has its own domain! Obviously, undeath and death are related, but they are two different domains for a reason. Repose, on the other hand, is simply a sub-catagory of the death domain, which really has no purpose except for the aforementioned "death is eeeeeeevil" standard. Thematically speaking, if something is a sub-category, it reflects the theme. Thematically speaking, if something reflects a theme as much as something directly named for the theme, then it is in fact that theme. The death domain reflects undeath thematically, not death. Which aren't the origional spirits of the host for those undead who do have souls. According to what? Not that quote for sure. And necromancers (i.e. the specialist wizards) can create undead, so that's a moot point anyway. Can does not equal does. That is yet another logical fallacy. Generalist wizards can create undead. All specialist wizards, if they take the proper opposition schools, can create undead. Which had nothing to do with objection in the first place, which had to do with butchering my character concept, Your character concept is based on creating undead? If not, then what specifically are you losing taking the repose domain instead of the death domain? Except that you ignore that in 1e and 2e, Greyhawk had it's own core campaign book. It was later subsumed by the game in general, I'd imagine, so players and DMs had a baseline of material to use for their games, and to help establish things like having non-evil PC necromantic characters (notice how the god used for thieves isn't evil, either). I am ignoring nothing. You made a statement about them being described as core deities in 2nd ed. That is wrong, they are not. And you can have a necromantic character all you want. Just not one worshipping Wee Jas and being a true necromancer. For example, I did not know that Wee Jas was opposed to making undead in 2e. Then why claim you are correct? Or get so upset when I correct you? Except that necromancy is not listed as being specifically evil in the PHB under the alignments. Applied neromancy leads to neutral or evil alignments. Applied racism is wholly evil. Thus, it is not like necromancy, is not necromancy is not nearly as evil. Really? There is some rather overt racism in Tenh that doesn't seem to be making anyone evil. Given the number of times that I've seen players rightly use the "emanations of evil..from any character" to find an evil characters, this distinction has such a small practical difference that it is basically moot. It most certainly does. The rule clearly says other than as you asserted. It did work quite well for this in 2e, since evil characters, especially very evil ones, emanated strong evil, even if it didn't tell your their alignment. Quite effective "evildar". Only if they were over 9th level. Only if they were intent upon appropriate actions. Only if they were true in their faith. So it would function quite poorly for the vast majority of NPCs encountered. Personally, I like the 1e version you describe better, but the text is that clear on the 2e version. It can be interpretted either way, and I suspect that part of the reason that it became even more explicitly like evidar in 3e than it was in 2e had something to do with the fact that Detect Evil was interpreted as evildar by many players in 2e. That is the 2nd ed version. And just because many players of 2nd ed couldn't be bothered to read, understand, or play by the rules, doesn't change how the spell was written.
Objulen 03-02-06, 04:48 PM	And? It is still an opinion. And according to you, no opinion is of less worth than any other. So it should still be allowed in a game. No, my opinion is that in an officially sanctioned game, that opinions within the core rules should be allowed. D&D is a game of heroics, but it allows for flawed heroes such as the heroic necromancer via neutral alignments. Because you haven't proven that "death + magic = necromancy." Other than the root of the word? Necromancy is the magic of death. What other school of spells has death nearly the number of death effects? What other school of spells death with death directly, or manipulates negative energy, the energy of death? To argue that necromancy is not the school is to be intentionally obtuse to retain your own position. No other school has such a collection of spells that creates undead, manipulates undead, and deals with death, as well as transfering life-forces (such as Clone or Magic Jar). Obviously, there are exceptions to this, but they are isolated events -- one can find such exceptions in any school. Necromancy in D&D is the magic of death, so the union of death and magic is necromancy. Becauce you haven't proven that "necromancy = creating undead." What school has undead creation spells other than necromancy? Because both are contradicted by material in the rules, specifically the existence of spells that kill without being necromancy, No. Necromancy has the vast majority if spells with death-effects in the game. There are other spells that kill, but they don't do it by snuffing out the life force of a creature directly, which is the providence of necromancy. death that is caused without magic, Which has nothing to do with death magic. necromancer archetypes that don't create undead, and necromancy spells that do not in fact create undead. Still involve the manipulation of of negative energy and life forces (if only by destroying them), and still can create undead (except in the case of a good clerical necromancer build, the only exception), but choose not to. But how many LG wizards would refuse to use Command or Control Undead? You have presumed conclusions without proving the facts, and by denying the other possibilities. Not at all. I simply don't reiterate information that is stated the PHB, the roots of the word of the type of magic, and the spells included in that school of magic that are automatically associated with the archetype. You once again make the fallicy of pointing out exceptions when we are talking about generalities. There are psionic death effects. There are illusion death-effects as well IIRC (I don't remember if phantasmal killer is off the top of my head). That really has no place in the discussion. Illusion is the school of creating false images and deluding the sense. Psionic death effects manipulate time or the mind. Necromany is the school of death, it's energy, the undead, through creation and control, and the direct manipulation of life forces. That is its purpose in the game and in fantasy. Too bad it doesn't say that. Correct. The CD quote I used above says that. The Libris Mortis says that most undead don't trap the soul. I did show how you are wrong. You have yet to do so. Thematically speaking, if something is a sub-category, it reflects the theme. True, but a sub-catagory can not accurately the catagory as a whole, and reducing a catagory to a sub-catagory means that it can not cover the content of the catagory. Thematically speaking, if something reflects a theme as much as something directly named for the theme, then it is in fact that theme. First, the Repose domain is not suitable for all death deities, by the SRD: "The Repose domain is similar to the Death domain, but is granted by good-aligned deities whose clerics are barred from casting evil spells." Thus, the death domain is the domain for neutral death deities. The only reason that the Repose domain exists is, as I pointed out, to sanatize death for good gods who can't use undead because it's "eeeeevil". Except that the death domian does not reflect undeath more than it reflects death. The granted ability reflects death, as does The death domain reflects death thematically, not undeath. It has 3 spells that create undead, but 2/3's of the domain, the vast majority, has nothing to do with the undead. There's more than 1 domain that has spells that don't perfectly fit the domain, since all domains use spells, which doesn't always have the perfect spell for a particular level that is balanced for a cleric to have. According to what? Not that quote for sure. "Some creature types don't have souls and simply cease to exist when they die. Constructs just fall apart, for example. Undead creatures likewise cease to exist, although destroying and undead creature sometimes frees a soul trapped within it (as described below)." You see, the part that says "Constructs just fall apart for example." refers back to "Some creature types don't have souls and simply cease to exist when they die." The part that says, "Undead creatures likewise cease to exist" also refers back to "Constructs just fall apart for example." which refers back to "Some creature types don't have souls and simply cease to exist when they die." You might want to have someone draw you up a grammar tree. Can does not equal does. That is yet another logical fallacy. Not in reference to the abilities of the class. Choosing not to use and ability doesn't mean that you can't use it. And by that logic, Dread Necromancers should be allowed to be good, since they don't have to create undead either (or become a lich for that matter). Generalist wizards can create undead. All specialist wizards, if they take the proper opposition schools, can create undead. Quite true. So trying to point out that the "dread necromancer isn't the necromancer class" is a moot point. Along with the straw man of attacking the weakest point of that sentence. You attacked my previous statement because it was misunderstood. I clarified. You now ignore the rest of that sentence, and attack the point where it says that specialist necromancers dont' have to create undead. They don't have to, but that has nothing to do with anything. Your character concept is based on creating undead? No, a character concept based on exploring death in all its aspects through my character's alignment. Given that I can still play a single-class lord of the undead cleric of Wee Jas with the Repose domain, I wouldn't have grounds to object to the change for that reason, since I can still rebuke undead and I can still create undead. Infact, I'd probably want the repose domain, because I get domain spells I can use more regularly. If not, then what specifically are you losing taking the repose domain instead of the death domain? I am losing the ability to truely explore death with my character, as the game has defined it quite clearly. "Repose" is good, "death" is evil, and that's the end of it. I am ignoring nothing. You made a statement about them being described as core deities in 2nd ed. That is wrong, they are not. No, I made a statment about core gods in 3e, not 2e. And you can have a necromantic character all you want. Just not one worshipping Wee Jas and being a true necromancer. If not being able to be a True Necromancer was my objection, I never would have made the character in the first place, since the True Necro has been NPC only since 3.0. Now, to be honest, I did want to make a True Necro, but I was able to make my character with a single class cleric of Wee Jas. Then why claim you are correct? Or get so upset when I correct you? I'm not claiming I'm correct when I'm not. However, you seem to frequently misinterpret what I say, which has happened multiple times in this thread. Really? There is some rather overt racism in Tenh that doesn't seem to be making anyone evil. I am not familiar with the Tenh, but given that the god you mentioned espouses and practices genocide, it may be that the Tenh aren't so severe. Racism, however, is specifically a lawful evil trait. Creating undead is not mentioned in the alignment section at all. It most certainly does. The rule clearly says other than as you asserted. This spell discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the caseof the reverse spell, from any creature Note that the current Detect Evil doesn't reveal alignment, it just shows evil auras. Given that the 2e version detected eminations of evil from creatures, this is very, very similar from a very common interpretation. It might not explicitly reveal alignment like detect evil, but if a creature consistantly has evil eminating from it, it's going to be evil. Only if they were over 9th level. Only if they were intent upon appropriate actions. Only if they were true in their faith. So it would function quite poorly for the vast majority of NPCs encountered. That's when you get their alignment, similar to spells that reveal just that directly. However, since evil creatures "ping" from their evil eminations, it is a very effective tracking device. If you notice, detect evil in 3e only picks up auras of evil. i.e. evil eminations, for creatures. That is the 2nd ed version. And just because many players of 2nd ed couldn't be bothered to read, understand, or play by the rules, doesn't change how the spell was written. And just because you believe that you have the One and Only Truth of D&D doesn't mean that you are the end-all be-all of the game.
Sieylianna 03-02-06, 05:04 PM	Luckily, LG is not rife with undead haters. (although the emergence of RSoP or its equvilents definitely made a bump). Personal play experience has shown me that the players who even care are quite small. Normal players don't notice, power gamers don't care because it is a weak thing to do, so only the more role of the role players care. Of those it is only the ones who have a character who dislike undead that are a mismatch. All but one of them has accepted it with grace. Most of them say "I'll keep an eye on you" and they do indeed vow to destroy any undead that appear. They do it after the module is over,though, which does not bother anyone. It is not even a roleplaying stretch. The situation is you find yourself partied with a necromancer who you know is a generally decent sort. No undead around. Then in the middle of the dungeon, some ogres you just killed become undead. Not good. But your choice is to kill them now, or go into the next room and save the princess. Since you know the undead are not going to run away, rescuing the princess comes first. After that is done the undead are destroyed. The key is to give the character a clear choice between destroying undead and prosecuting the mission. While I believe most necromancers dream of having a small undead army at their beck and call, the above approach does not step on toes much and has worked well. I have a cleric of Pelor who is going for radiant servant. The problems with you creating and dragging around undead are 1) unless I see you cast the spell, I have to to assume it's an effect of the location (unhallow and animate dead); 2) if we run across undead during the module, yours are going to be the first affected when I turn undead; and 3) turning damage I waste on your undead may delay me from turning the undead we're supposed to be fighting, which could lead to PC deaths. We have a necromancer in a home game who likes to animate dead and my cleric tolerates it. But that's a home game, and characters can be more eccentric. While I've thought about a cleric of myrhiss for LG who refuses to heal anyone with a negative charisma modifier, it's not fair to the players who may end up playing with me, and discover that my definition of a cleric doesn't match theirs. Ed
CSHunt68 03-02-06, 05:37 PM	Then again, the opposite would be true. By what respect? No, I think not.
CSHunt68 03-02-06, 05:38 PM	And then the cleric gets restrained by the rest of the party that isn't so fanatical? Pelor may not like undead, but I'd imagine that he'd say that people come first (i.e. saving the princess) to undeath crusades. Many people (players AND characters) believe that, in fact, the ends do NOT justify the means. This is kinda what it means to be "heroic".
opa 03-02-06, 06:10 PM	A..the longer your posts the less likely I am to care what you wrote B.. its arguments like this that probably led alot of triads, mine included, to ban necromancy of any type, I think this is an argument that depends alot on the flavor of the region you play in.. In Bissel you won't play a necromancer long before being jailed.. unless you play at home with your buddies and then hopefully they are all of questionable alignments too, and the judge imposes the proper region designed penalties for flouting the law.. otherwise it's really just cheating although you could have a necromancer type and play him in cores.. (I have a character that only plays cores) that being said in other regions lets say the bandit kingdoms I could see alot of things in the argument making a little more sense, which again is a regional triad type issue solved through access they give, they may choose to allow things other regions do not The rest of this conversation is beginning to sound more like people just trying to argue and beating a dead horse this may be one area we will have to agree to disagree on, and let the judges and triads in our respective regions make the calls at the tables we play (by the way if I was at a table, I would side with the cleric, or turn in a necromancer if one played at a table with me, why because I signed the oath to do so, and because it just seems right..)
Ancillary 03-02-06, 07:09 PM	It is true that Bissel is strongly anti-undead due to their history and I respect that. Which makes it very ironic that in one of the few Bissel mods we played my gf's necromancer got a (very) minor artifact of strong necromatic qualities. However, I think that regional bias is not that relevant to this discussion. As you said, in cores it would not be a problem, and I think several regions (mine included) are the same. Since animating undead is perfectly legal per the LGCS 5.0, the burden lies on someone who wished to stop a player at their table from doing it to justify their actions. I would consider an oath-bound Bissel character to have reason to not want to think of a reason to play with a necromancer. For others, especially neutral characters who are supposed to be less worried about laws, they need to stretch more. In response to the one who was worried about turning, I believe a party that has both a radiant servent and a necromancer in it will go through an undead module like butter, so there is no need to worry about player deaths. In fact the necromancer probably won't even be animating dead, but simply commanding existing ones.
Objulen 03-02-06, 07:18 PM	By what respect? No, I think not. I think so. If the onus is on the player who makes undead to find a different table at one that has characters that hate undead, then the onus is on the player of the character that hates undead to find a new table at one that doesn't mind.
Objulen 03-02-06, 07:19 PM	Many people (players AND characters) believe that, in fact, the ends do NOT justify the means. This is kinda what it means to be "heroic". Ends justify the means or not, this is a simple matter of priorities. You can always destroy the undead later -- it's alot harder to bring back the dead. There's also a bit of a difference between disagreeing with someone and starting a fight over it.
Objulen 03-02-06, 07:26 PM	I have a cleric of Pelor who is going for radiant servant. The problems with you creating and dragging around undead are 1) unless I see you cast the spell, I have to to assume it's an effect of the location (unhallow and animate dead); Unless the PC says, "I made these." 2) if we run across undead during the module, yours are going to be the first affected when I turn undead; If a cleric made the undead is single class (which any player who wants a necromancer is pretty much forced into), then unless you are going to pop a greater turning attempt, it makes more sense for the other cleric to rebuke undead, which doesn't have this problem (since you already control these undead, your rebuke attempt skips over them, just like you skip over already turned undead). If you are going to pop a greater turning, then it just comes down to tactics -- the other player's undead run away from battle, and you turn. and 3) turning damage I waste on your undead may delay me from turning the undead we're supposed to be fighting, which could lead to PC deaths. See the above. We have a necromancer in a home game who likes to animate dead and my cleric tolerates it. But that's a home game, and characters can be more eccentric. While I've thought about a cleric of myrhiss for LG who refuses to heal anyone with a negative charisma modifier, it's not fair to the players who may end up playing with me, and discover that my definition of a cleric doesn't match theirs. Ed Which some would say is an appropriate punishment for min/maxers using CHA as a dump stat (not that I agree). Right or wrong (my opinion), people can make characters to punishment a certain archetype if they chose.
Sieylianna 03-02-06, 08:52 PM	If a cleric made the undead is single class (which any player who wants a necromancer is pretty much forced into), then unless you are going to pop a greater turning attempt, it makes more sense for the other cleric to rebuke undead, which doesn't have this problem (since you already control these undead, your rebuke attempt skips over them, just like you skip over already turned undead). Two clerics at one table? Is that allowed?* *In my long LG career, over 300 modules, we haven't had a cleric in the party for more than half of them. I think we've had two clerics at three of those tables. Ed
CSHunt68 03-02-06, 09:00 PM	I think so. If the onus is on the player who makes undead to find a different table at one that has characters that hate undead, then the onus is on the player of the character that hates undead to find a new table at one that doesn't mind. Not remotely. I would assert my right to play a heroic character, in line with the majority of the LG world. I need not kowtow to someone who's determined to ignore that fact, regardless of whether the rest of the table is or not. Anyone with undead companions is free to move along, or have them destroyed. That's the price you're going to pay for doing things of such terribly dubious moral fibre. I'm sure there are characters out there who rationalize all kinds of things, or argue perfect moral relativism. I need not bend over to roleplay with _everyone_. There is a line. And the "bad sportsmanship" is in creating a character that's going to have such grave difficulties getting along with others in LG. There really isn't anything left to discuss. If you can point at a SINGLE good deity who supports the crafting and common use of undead, we'll talk about it. Until then, I will consider it clearly an evil act, whether or not it's legal in LG. That's all.
CSHunt68 03-02-06, 09:02 PM	Ends justify the means or not, this is a simple matter of priorities. You can always destroy the undead later -- it's alot harder to bring back the dead. There's also a bit of a difference between disagreeing with someone and starting a fight over it. There's a difference between something not being "illegal" in LG, and thinking that it's a good idea. In any case, the original remark that the ends do not justify the means stands. You're merely rationalizing it, and making it quite clear that you think the ends DO justify the means.
Objulen 03-02-06, 09:50 PM	Not remotely. I would assert my right to play a heroic character, in line with the majority of the LG world. I need not kowtow to someone who's determined to ignore that fact, regardless of whether the rest of the table is or not. "I'm perfectly justified in being a jerk to everyone else in the game because I don't agree with other people's way of enjoying the game." Yea, that's real mature. Do you always act this close minded? Anyone with undead companions is free to move along, or have them destroyed. That's the price you're going to pay for doing things of such terribly dubious moral fibre. I'm sure there are characters out there who rationalize all kinds of things, or argue perfect moral relativism. I need not bend over to roleplay with _everyone_. There is a line. And the "bad sportsmanship" is in creating a character that's going to have such grave difficulties getting along with others in LG. Wow. Do you have trouble with logical consistancy? If everyone else at the table doesn't care if the character has undead minions except you, then you are the one who's having trouble with others in LG, not vice-versa. FYI, CSHunt68 does not compose the major body of a table when he's in a 5-to-1 minority. There really isn't anything left to discuss. Then feel free to be knocked out, tied up, and left at the inn for the duration of the modual for assaulting the rest of the party. If you can point at a SINGLE good deity who supports the crafting and common use of undead, we'll talk about it. Until then, I will consider it clearly an evil act, whether or not it's legal in LG. That's all. I don't have to point towards any good deity that supports it. There are several neutral deities who don't mind in the least, which by the rules of LG is all I, or anyone else, needs. Boccob is known as the "uncaring" for a reason, so I can make a single-class necromancer for Boccob who rebukes undead quite easily if I wanted to. Why is it that you feel entitled to ignore the rules of LG (i.e. that you can play a neutral charcter and have a neutral god) when they don't suit your vision of how the game should be, or that you feel you have the right to disrupt the game for everyone else for the same reason?
Objulen 03-02-06, 10:11 PM	There's a difference between something not being "illegal" in LG, and thinking that it's a good idea. There's also this thing called "tolerance", and unless your LG characters are going to lash out at the rogue at your table when they find out he's picking pockets, you have no room to talk. In any case, the original remark that the ends do not justify the means stands. You're merely rationalizing it, and making it quite clear that you think the ends DO justify the means. Actually, no. If I were going to discuss ends and means, I would simply state that there is no such things as the means or the ends, only the final, or total, result. Like chemistry, cause and effect lead to a specific product. You add H2 + O -> H2O. You decide that the necromantic cleric of Boccob's skeletons are an unforgiveable evil instead of saving the princess, and the princess gets killed when the guys inside the room hear the noise of battle, and worse, possibly wipes the group that is suffering from infighting because of your intolerance -> dead princess, injured, possibly dead group, dead undead. Instead, if you exersize self-control, and wait until the badies are dead to launch into your tantrum against the skeletons, you get -> live princess, live group, dead undead, or live princess, live group, and you beaten into unconsciousness. Assuming that you are trying to save the princess instead of proving to yourself that you are morally superior to the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil necromancer, this is the preferable choice. Just because you have what you believe to be the moral high ground doesn't give you the right to start pushing people down the hill because they don't agree with you. Last time I checked, the pride and arrogance of being absorbed in your own rightness wasn't a heroic quality -- indeed, it is this sort of hubris that leads paladins to fall. If you're wasting time and energy dealing with some skeletons that are helping you help innocent people, those people who could have used that time and energy to make their lives better are going without it. You say that you'd go after the undead because they are evil. Are you go around with detect evil and cull every single evil person in town next? They are evil, after all, so culling them makes more room for the good folks, who don't have to worry about the evil people. And that's where we get to the "total results". Any person of character is going to be far more concerned with the welfare of flesh and blood human beings than some necromancer they are teamed up with who has demonstrated no inclination towards hurting the innocent (indeed, who has probably helped them), and you can't escape it with semantics games like "the ends justify the means". Opportunity cost still applies to LG "heroes" who want to fight the nasty LN "dark heroes". You can worry about minutia because it's "evil", or you can use that Cure Serious Wounds to heal the injured. You can make all the claims you want to about having rights and title to "heroism", but at the end of the day, after you've wasted your spells slaying my skeletons, I think that I'll be the one called hero by the people after I turn some spell slots into cure spells (Spontaneous Healer, got to love it).
Ancillary 03-02-06, 10:20 PM	I am confused. Why does it matter if you play a character that thinks the ends justify the means? Why does a good god need to support undead? It is true that creating undead is evil, but it is also a fact that you can play a solidly neutral character that can do it. This is born out by the True Necromancer from LM, the Dread Necromancer from HH, and the LG circle allowing neutral characters to do so. In fact, a good wizard could as well. This is not a case of someone trying to play an evil anti-hero, this is about someone playing a neutral adventurer. Neutral is by definition very different from good. One of the qualities neutrality has is the ability to use whatever tools are effective, regardless of the taboos society may have placed on them. Saying a neutral character cannot be heroic is silly. Anyway, I am not particularly worried about it. As I said my play experience has shown that few people mind playing alongside a necromancer. In fact the majority seemed to enjoy the novelty of it. It is true that regions such as Bissel can have in-game repercussions, but a necromancer is wise or smart enough to avoid them (by not using necromancy if necessary) and this is part of the game experience. In the POU, elves and Half-Orcs are considered second class citizens. But at tables there players of such races are still treated well by their dwarf companions, although some light hearted jibing is generally in order.
Objulen 03-02-06, 10:34 PM	Two clerics at one table? Is that allowed?* *In my long LG career, over 300 modules, we haven't had a cleric in the party for more than half of them. I think we've had two clerics at three of those tables. Ed I don't know. In any event, I'd say that if a wizard is packing some skeletons, he/she is probably focused at least a little on necromancy, and can also use Command Undead (or, if high enough in level, Control Undead), so while the skeletons go running for a round, some poor sap is making a will save to keep from being charmed.
Samwise 03-02-06, 11:23 PM	No, my opinion is that in an officially sanctioned game, that opinions within the core rules should be allowed. D&D is a game of heroics, but it allows for flawed heroes such as the heroic necromancer via neutral alignments. The core rules also include the evil alignment. Other than the root of the word? Yes, other than the root of the word. Death and magic can combine to form many things other than necromancy. They can combine to create protection for the dead, something you seem to find inferior. They can combine to create life, like the clone spell. They can combine to symbolize the cycle of life, and be a reincarnation cult. They can combine to portray an innate fear of magic. They can be many things, not merely animating undead. And just because you believe that you have the One and Only Truth of D&D doesn't mean that you are the end-all be-all of the game. I never claimed to be. But since you seem to have abandoned discussion for simple rudness when called on your errors, my responses to you are at an end.
CSHunt68 03-03-06, 08:22 AM	"I'm perfectly justified in being a jerk to everyone else in the game because I don't agree with other people's way of enjoying the game." Yea, that's real mature. Do you always act this close minded? Why is it that I'M being the "jerk" rather than the guy who wants to play in a way bound to **** off loads of other players, hmm? ;) Wow. Do you have trouble with logical consistancy? If everyone else at the table doesn't care if the character has undead minions except you, then you are the one who's having trouble with others in LG, not vice-versa. FYI, CSHunt68 does not compose the major body of a table when he's in a 5-to-1 minority. No, I don't have trouble with "logical consistancy (sic)", but I think you do. I think you need to reread that bit and think about it harder. Look, if a single player or a bunch of players want to commit borderline evil acts, whether or not the DM is going to sanction them, it's perfectly within my rights to take action. I don't need to be in the majority _at a table_ to do so. I feel perfectly justified being in the majority _of LG_, and following the spirit of the rules. Clear? Logical enough for you? LOL Then feel free to be knocked out, tied up, and left at the inn for the duration of the modual for assaulting the rest of the party. Wow, speaking of logical consistency (note the spelling, by the way) ... _I_ would not be the one assaulting other players, _you_ would be - _I_ would merely be destroying undead. Your characters would be removed from the campaign immediately. Not a good plan. (Though, perhaps a good one on _my_ part ;) ...) I don't have to point towards any good deity that supports it. There are several neutral deities who don't mind in the least, which by the rules of LG is all I, or anyone else, needs. Boccob is known as the "uncaring" for a reason, so I can make a single-class necromancer for Boccob who rebukes undead quite easily if I wanted to. Right. Neutral deities. Who can perform both good and evil. CLEARLY, the crafting and using of undead falls in the evil part of that pair, since there aren't any good deities who do it - and because it's bloody obvious. You're free, as a Cleric of Boccob, to rebuke undead. A Cleric of Pelor is free to destroy those undead, on his turn. You'll just have to live with it. Or leave. Why is it that you feel entitled to ignore the rules of LG (i.e. that you can play a neutral charcter and have a neutral god) when they don't suit your vision of how the game should be, or that you feel you have the right to disrupt the game for everyone else for the same reason? I'm not ignoring the rules of LG. I'm following them. It's not clear that you are. You are free to worship a neutral deity, and to be neutral. This does NOT entitle you to walk on BOTH sides of that line - committing good AND evil. Right? I'm not disrupting the game for everyone else. I'm (possibly) disrupting it for those who don't want to act the hero, for those who want to commit evil and say that the ends justify the means. Too bad.
CSHunt68 03-03-06, 09:06 AM	There's also this thing called "tolerance", and unless your LG characters are going to lash out at the rogue at your table when they find out he's picking pockets, you have no room to talk. If the picking of pockets is clearly beyond the pale - he's robbing a merciful priest tending to the great unwashed, or he's robbing a destitute family - my RS will prevent that in any way he can. Then talk to the "rogue". ;) That's just fun role-playing. If a Cleric of (insert "neutral" deity here) tries to craft or use some undead for whatever purpose, my RS will casually blow off a greater turning and nip that in the bud. Oops. ;) Same thing. Actually, no. If I were going to discuss ends and means, I would simply state that there is no such things as the means or the ends, only the final, or total, result. Like chemistry, cause and effect lead to a specific product. You add H2 + O -> H2O. You decide that the necromantic cleric of Boccob's skeletons are an unforgiveable evil instead of saving the princess, and the princess gets killed when the guys inside the room hear the noise of battle, and worse, possibly wipes the group that is suffering from infighting because of your intolerance -> dead princess, injured, possibly dead group, dead undead. Instead, if you exersize self-control, and wait until the badies are dead to launch into your tantrum against the skeletons, you get -> live princess, live group, dead undead, or live princess, live group, and you beaten into unconsciousness. Assuming that you are trying to save the princess instead of proving to yourself that you are morally superior to the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil necromancer, this is the preferable choice. Just because you have what you believe to be the moral high ground doesn't give you the right to start pushing people down the hill because they don't agree with you. Last time I checked, the pride and arrogance of being absorbed in your own rightness wasn't a heroic quality -- indeed, it is this sort of hubris that leads paladins to fall. If you're wasting time and energy dealing with some skeletons that are helping you help innocent people, those people who could have used that time and energy to make their lives better are going without it. You say that you'd go after the undead because they are evil. Are you go around with detect evil and cull every single evil person in town next? They are evil, after all, so culling them makes more room for the good folks, who don't have to worry about the evil people. And that's where we get to the "total results". Any person of character is going to be far more concerned with the welfare of flesh and blood human beings than some necromancer they are teamed up with who has demonstrated no inclination towards hurting the innocent (indeed, who has probably helped them), and you can't escape it with semantics games like "the ends justify the means". Opportunity cost still applies to LG "heroes" who want to fight the nasty LN "dark heroes". You can worry about minutia because it's "evil", or you can use that Cure Serious Wounds to heal the injured. You can make all the claims you want to about having rights and title to "heroism", but at the end of the day, after you've wasted your spells slaying my skeletons, I think that I'll be the one called hero by the people after I turn some spell slots into cure spells (Spontaneous Healer, got to love it). Wow. I had a really long response crafted, but I think I'll be brief, for the sake of others. Some points follow. You clearly think that the ends DO justify the means - or, rather (bizarrely) that there are NO means, only ends (one wonders if you know what the meaning of "means" is in this context - we're not talking particle physics - there clearly is a PATH going from one part of a module to another - no Heisenberg here, alas ;) ). Anyway, this would clearly explain your position. Either you're a moral relativist, or you believe it to justify your own behaviour. In any case, not everyone need agree with you, nor your behaviour at the table. My RS would not act against your Cleric of Boccob. He would likely continue to heal and interact with him, wouldn't involve the authorities, and would strive, using his best efforts, to achieve whatever good end is required by the module. But, he WOULD destroy his undead. If, in return, as you've threatened several times now, you _attempted_ to assault my RS, your PC would be immediately removed from the campaign. The LG rules make this _quite_ clear. You construct these examples whereby my RS is allowing evil to be committed when he spends many rounds and spells destroying your undead (when, in reality, it would be quite a simple act ;) ). These theoretical constructs are merely mind games used to justify your behaviour. It's the "24" syndrome. Is the torture of baddies justified if other lives are in immediate peril? If we don't torture them, and innocents die, have we done our best? I leave such philosophical games to others. Torture, like the crafting of undead, is clearly evil. No paragon of good would permit it, including my RS, despite your attempts to smear those beings by accusing them of being "holier than thou". Sorry, but the campaign acknowledges the existence of GOOD and EVIL. To say that Paladins who prevent evil acts are full of hubris is foolish. In any case, I hope you enjoy your LG experience. I trust that MY behaviour will not impact the enjoyment of others as much as yours will. But, your responses are becoming, predictably, quite lengthy. I've said my piece, you've said yours (though I think you'll prove me wrong). Perhaps we should spare the rest. Regards, Sean Hunt
CSHunt68 03-03-06, 09:17 AM	I am confused. Why does it matter if you play a character that thinks the ends justify the means? Why does a good god need to support undead? (I'll reply to this, and be done.) If you think the ends justify the means, you are prepared to commit evil acts in the name of good. This is not heroic. This is _potentially_ irresponsible LG play, depending upon how far you take that. Otherwise, you're left with defending the belief that the crafting of undead isn't evil (which you could do by pointing out a good deity who supports it). Neutral deities may do it because they are permitted both good and evil. LG characters are not. It is true that creating undead is evil, but it is also a fact that you can play a solidly neutral character that can do it. This is born out by the True Necromancer from LM, the Dread Necromancer from HH, and the LG circle allowing neutral characters to do so. In fact, a good wizard could as well. This is not a case of someone trying to play an evil anti-hero, this is about someone playing a neutral adventurer. Neutral is by definition very different from good. One of the qualities neutrality has is the ability to use whatever tools are effective, regardless of the taboos society may have placed on them. Saying a neutral character cannot be heroic is silly. Saying that a neutral character is thereby permitted to commit good AND evil acts because they're not good is what is silly. You can walk the line. Feel free. I LIKE "anti-heroes". But, don't flaunt it in front of others who don't feel the same way and expect them to always turn the other cheek. If you want to craft and use undead, you'd better be discreet about it. BTW, I'm not really sure where you stand. You say "creating undead is evil", but evil acts _aren't permitted in LG_. So, what's going on here? You can be neutral. Go ahead. You need not be a goody-good. I should hope not everyone is, because that would be dull. This does NOT permit you to do evil, and don't expect others to sit idly by while you do so. You may not always do good, you may not always intervene when evil is being done, you may be naughty or nasty or greedy or uncaring or whatever adjective you'd like - but you MAY NOT BE or COMMIT evil, even putting a "neutral" face on it. Anyway, I am not particularly worried about it. As I said my play experience has shown that few people mind playing alongside a necromancer. In fact the majority seemed to enjoy the novelty of it. It is true that regions such as Bissel can have in-game repercussions, but a necromancer is wise or smart enough to avoid them (by not using necromancy if necessary) and this is part of the game experience. In the POU, elves and Half-Orcs are considered second class citizens. But at tables there players of such races are still treated well by their dwarf companions, although some light hearted jibing is generally in order. I should hope you understand the difference between tolerance for the races of others and tolerance for the commission of (by your words) "evil" acts. I certainly do.
theliel 03-03-06, 03:53 PM	I am confused. Why does it matter if you play a character that thinks the ends justify the means? Why does a good god need to support undead? It is true that creating undead is evil, but it is also a fact that you can play a solidly neutral character that can do it. This is born out by the True Necromancer from LM, the Dread Necromancer from HH, and the LG circle allowing neutral characters to do so. In fact, a good wizard could as well. This is not a case of someone trying to play an evil anti-hero, this is about someone playing a neutral adventurer. Neutral is by definition very different from good. One of the qualities neutrality has is the ability to use whatever tools are effective, regardless of the taboos society may have placed on them. Saying a neutral character cannot be heroic is silly. Anyway, I am not particularly worried about it. As I said my play experience has shown that few people mind playing alongside a necromancer. In fact the majority seemed to enjoy the novelty of it. It is true that regions such as Bissel can have in-game repercussions, but a necromancer is wise or smart enough to avoid them (by not using necromancy if necessary) and this is part of the game experience. In the POU, elves and Half-Orcs are considered second class citizens. But at tables there players of such races are still treated well by their dwarf companions, although some light hearted jibing is generally in order. because the fact of the matter is that 90% of the good god's clerics and a goodly number of the nutral clerics in the game would need an atonement for allowing the undead to continue to exist. or did you miss the part where undead are inherently evil (zombies are now nutral evil, check the srd) as negative energy is inherently evil and unnatural? (there goes all the nature gods...which is the vast bulk of nutral gods) so great, thanks to that character tons of people need an atonement. I really wish i could quote WW's RULE #8 "don't be a jerk" as RAW like i can in MET forums, but the LGCS has the same intent. Don't be a jerk. Most people (players and characters in grayhawk) DON'T LIKE UNDEAD. PEIORD. if your'e gonna raise 'em, you're gonna pay the price, which is having your toys taken away. and no, it's not the same as drinking a potion. and i've been to alot of regions, and all of them have laws against undead in general, if not very specific lists of what is allowed and what is not.... and by the by, Living Grayhawk is the current steward for GH Cannon, as WoTC has given them free riegn. The circle IS cannon. It wasn't too long ago that any hironian using a longsword in furyondy couldn't be part of the curch.... the battle axe vs. longsword IS a big deal here......
Objulen 03-03-06, 06:45 PM	Why is it that I'M being the "jerk" rather than the guy who wants to play in a way bound to **** off loads of other players, hmm? ;) Yes, quite frankly. You have given multiple double standards in this thread more times than I care to count. If people don't like how I play, then they don't have to play with me. If I'm at a table with players who have characters who don't like undead, I'll use a different character or find another table. You don't seem to be nearly so accomidating. No, I don't have trouble with "logical consistancy (sic)", but I think you do. I think you need to reread that bit and think about it harder. Look, if a single player or a bunch of players want to commit borderline evil acts, whether or not the DM is going to sanction them, it's perfectly within my rights to take action. Once again, narrow-mindedness for the win! You may be the majority in LG, but the majority in LG is not playing at any given table, so that is one more irrelevent point you've made. People I've played with had no problem with a necromantic character. I don't need to be in the majority _at a table_ to do so. I feel perfectly justified being in the majority _of LG_, and following the spirit of the rules. Clear? Logical enough for you? LOL argumentum ad populum Definition: A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust) sector of the population. This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion" because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm As for the "spirit of the rules", that is, again, a matter of opinion. By the RAW, flawed heroes are in the game, leagally and spiritually. Wow, speaking of logical consistency (note the spelling, by the way) ... You must be desperate if you have to stoop to attacking my spelling errors to make your arguments look better. _I_ would not be the one assaulting other players, _you_ would be - _I_ would merely be destroying undead. Your characters would be removed from the campaign immediately. Not a good plan. (Though, perhaps a good one on _my_ part ;) ...) With what DM? That's like saying that you wouldn't be removed from play for going after a druid's animal companion because you hate wolves or attacking a character's Hippogriff familiar, or assaulting the wizard's summoned Hezru when facing a blue dragon or air elemental. An attack against another character's property, pets, etc. is an aggressive action against that character (and since skeletons and zombies are mindless and cost gold, they are definantly property) just the same as if you decided you didn't like someone's sword. Right. Neutral deities. Who can perform both good and evil. CLEARLY, the crafting and using of undead falls in the evil part of that pair, since there aren't any good deities who do it - Which is, again, irrelevent. Neutral characters can do things that evil in the game. You are singling out a specific type of in-game character because you don't like them out of game. That's immature playing at its worst. and because it's bloody obvious. Did you miss the fact that undead are purely fantastic, and the only reason that they be evil in a way that was "bloody obvious" is because the rules arbitrarily portray them that way? That any variety of arguments can be made for why this should not be and how using them can be good? You're free, as a Cleric of Boccob, to rebuke undead. A Cleric of Pelor is free to destroy those undead, on his turn. You'll just have to live with it. Or leave. Now you spout ultimatums. I thought that you were trying to show that you weren't a jerk. I'm not ignoring the rules of LG. I'm following them. It's not clear that you are. You are free to worship a neutral deity, and to be neutral. This does NOT entitle you to walk on BOTH sides of that line - committing good AND evil. Right? You mean, like stealing people's money? Or by the very discription of the dread necrmancer in Heroes of Horror? For someone who is so concerned about rules, you don't seem to care about the ones that contradict your position. I'm not disrupting the game for everyone else. I'm (possibly) disrupting it for those who don't want to act the hero, for those who want to commit evil and say that the ends justify the means. Too bad. That depends on what your DM and the rest of the party has to say on the matter. I know that if you showed up in the game I used to play at with that sort of attitude, you would have been shown the door for being a disruptive, haughty, pain in *ss.
Objulen 03-03-06, 07:13 PM	If the picking of pockets is clearly beyond the pale - he's robbing a merciful priest tending to the great unwashed, or he's robbing a destitute family - my RS will prevent that in any way he can. Then talk to the "rogue". ;) That's just fun role-playing. If a Cleric of (insert "neutral" deity here) tries to craft or use some undead for whatever purpose, my RS will casually blow off a greater turning and nip that in the bud. Oops. ;) Same thing. But if he's stealing from some rich guy, you don't care? You don't even follow your own standards. It's not heoric, so why don't you do something about it? Somehow, I don't think "Oops" is going to make a good excuse when you blow the module for the party. Wow. I had a really long response crafted, but I think I'll be brief, for the sake of others. Some points follow. You clearly think that the ends DO justify the means - or, rather (bizarrely) that there are NO means, only ends (one wonders if you know what the meaning of "means" is in this context - we're not talking particle physics - there clearly is a PATH going from one part of a module to another - no Heisenberg here, alas ;) ). I am quite aware of what "means" refers to in this context. I simply contend that it is not the most accurate way to assess the situation. You missed the part where I clarified by saying, "Like chemistry, cause and effect lead to a specific product." The means doesn't matter because whatever good or evil that is caused by the means will be in the ends. People generally just ignore an evil commited by chalking it upto means, but, in the final tally, a dead body is still a dead body, just like the hydrogen and oxygen are now water. Anyway, this would clearly explain your position. Either you're a moral relativist, or you believe it to justify your own behaviour. In any case, not everyone need agree with you, nor your behaviour at the table. I never claimed that everyone needed to agree with me. You were the one doing that. As for moral relativism, if recognizing that there are consequences to your actions is moral relativism, then I guess I'm guilty. You also seem to live in a microcosm where almost everyone but a few people hold opinions every similar to yours. My RS would not act against your Cleric of Boccob. He would likely continue to heal and interact with him, wouldn't involve the authorities, and would strive, using his best efforts, to achieve whatever good end is required by the module. But, he WOULD destroy his undead. If, in return, as you've threatened several times now, you _attempted_ to assault my RS, your PC would be immediately removed from the campaign. The LG rules make this _quite_ clear. No, you would have assaulted my PC buy destroying that PC's "pets", just as you would have if you had destroyed my PC's sword, or another PCs familiar or animal companion. You seem to think that just because you don't directly attack the PCs physical person, you don't attack them. By your standards, and can hunt down druid and ranger animal companions, sorcerer and wizard familiars, and sunder any PCs equipment that I want, or otherwise do everything in my power to give that PC a bad day as long as I don't do anything that would cause damage to that player. Sorry, but the door swings both ways on this one. You construct these examples whereby my RS is allowing evil to be committed when he spends many rounds and spells destroying your undead (when, in reality, it would be quite a simple act ;) ). These theoretical constructs are merely mind games used to justify your behaviour. It's the "24" syndrome. Is the torture of baddies justified if other lives are in immediate peril? If we don't torture them, and innocents die, have we done our best? I leave such philosophical games to others. Torture, like the crafting of undead, is clearly evil. No paragon of good would permit it, including my RS, despite your attempts to smear those beings by accusing them of being "holier than thou". Sorry, but the campaign acknowledges the existence of GOOD and EVIL. To say that Paladins who prevent evil acts are full of hubris is foolish. Talk about missing the point by a mile. 1) Torturering people is violating a person's inherent dignity. That's a far cry away from going after skeletons that are used to help people and preserve their inherent dignity. Your comparison to animating undead as being the same not valid. 2) I never said that you wouldn't destroy the undead, I said that it would probably be a better idea to wait until the princess was safe to mount your moral high horse. 3) If what I'm doing is "mind games", then so is a great deal of philosophy and economics. You may not like it, but opportunity cost is a reality that applies even to the good-guys. Trying to dismiss that as a "mind game" is to once more indulge in your own microcosm that has very little to do with reality in or out of the game. In any case, I hope you enjoy your LG experience. I trust that MY behaviour will not impact the enjoyment of others as much as yours will. Given what you've said, this is simply one more example of your own double-standards. You seem to have no compunction against ruining other players' experiance in the game if they don't match your narrow definition of heroic, but feel that other players making flawed heroes as the rules permits degrades everyone else's experiance in a 10 mile radius simply by existing. But, your responses are becoming, predictably, quite lengthy. A side effect of backing up arguments with reasons. I've said my piece, you've said yours (though I think you'll prove me wrong). Perhaps we should spare the rest. By replying to what you've said? How vile of me.
Objulen 03-03-06, 07:24 PM	The core rules also include the evil alignment. Which are clearly not meant for PC use as heroes. Given that neutral alignments each have a section that describes why it is "the best", just like good alignments, while evil ones have a reason why they are "dangerous", your argument is invalid. Yes, other than the root of the word. Death and magic can combine to form many things other than necromancy. They can combine to create protection for the dead, something you seem to find inferior. They can combine to create life, like the clone spell. They can combine to symbolize the cycle of life, and be a reincarnation cult. They can combine to portray an innate fear of magic. They can be many things, not merely animating undead. Here's a quote from me from the first page: A character with the death domain could explore death (which has been a subject of quite some speculation for the history of humanity) in all its forms, good and bad, active and passive through the lense of her/his alignment and outlook. That a terrible cleric of Nerull or a LG cleric of Wee Jas could share a domain (o, the horror!) simply went to show that death was more complicated than chopping it up into composite domains that were "good" and "bad". I made similar statements in other sections of this thread. Also, if I only focused on one aspect of death, I never would have taken Spontanous Healer for my character, since there are many other feats that improve the spell power of necromancy spells. I also mentioned clone. However, I did miss protecting people from death. That is something else that falls under necromancy, and is in the domain list for the Death domain. The domain, as I said, covered all aspects of death. I never claimed to be. But since you seem to have abandoned discussion for simple rudness when called on your errors, my responses to you are at an end. I have no problem accepting my errors, but I find it rather elitist (which is sprinkled in several of your responses, such as the reply that the CD doesn't say that undead have no souls when it states just that in plain english) to say that all those players didn't understand or play by the rules when the spell clearly states that it allows you to detect evil eminations off of a creature, which can easily be understood to mean the aura that an evil alignment would give off.
Ancillary 03-03-06, 11:15 PM	(I'll reply to this, and be done.) If you think the ends justify the means, you are prepared to commit evil acts in the name of good. This is not heroic. This is _potentially_ irresponsible LG play, depending upon how far you take that. Otherwise, you're left with defending the belief that the crafting of undead isn't evil (which you could do by pointing out a good deity who supports it). Neutral deities may do it because they are permitted both good and evil. LG characters are not. Saying that a neutral character is thereby permitted to commit good AND evil acts because they're not good is what is silly. You can walk the line. Feel free. I LIKE "anti-heroes". But, don't flaunt it in front of others who don't feel the same way and expect them to always turn the other cheek. If you want to craft and use undead, you'd better be discreet about it. BTW, I'm not really sure where you stand. You say "creating undead is evil", but evil acts _aren't permitted in LG_. So, what's going on here? You can be neutral. Go ahead. You need not be a goody-good. I should hope not everyone is, because that would be dull. This does NOT permit you to do evil, and don't expect others to sit idly by while you do so. You may not always do good, you may not always intervene when evil is being done, you may be naughty or nasty or greedy or uncaring or whatever adjective you'd like - but you MAY NOT BE or COMMIT evil, even putting a "neutral" face on it. You are incorrect. In LG you are allowed to commit evil acts. It can only *potentially* take your character away. The way it works is character x casts animate dead. The judge warns the players that it is an evil act. The player replies his character feels it helps the greater good of the mission. The judge says very well and play continues. At the end of the session a note is made on the AR and the judge reports the action to the triad. They read the email saying a character raised fallen foes to help the party, after which the undead were dismissed. They will then decide on a case-by-case basis whether to allow the character to stay in the campaign. Given the current LG rules situation, a triad would look foolish taking away the player's character. The way triads deal with necromancers if they dislike them in their region is to have in-campaign ramifications, a solution which pleases most people.
Ancillary 03-03-06, 11:30 PM	because the fact of the matter is that 90% of the good god's clerics and a goodly number of the nutral clerics in the game would need an atonement for allowing the undead to continue to exist. or did you miss the part where undead are inherently evil (zombies are now nutral evil, check the srd) as negative energy is inherently evil and unnatural? (there goes all the nature gods...which is the vast bulk of nutral gods) so great, thanks to that character tons of people need an atonement. I really wish i could quote WW's RULE #8 "don't be a jerk" as RAW like i can in MET forums, but the LGCS has the same intent. Don't be a jerk. Most people (players and characters in grayhawk) DON'T LIKE UNDEAD. PEIORD. if your'e gonna raise 'em, you're gonna pay the price, which is having your toys taken away. and no, it's not the same as drinking a potion....... I have to disagree. You only need an atonement if you "grossly violate the code of conduct required by your god". I do not believe included in any god's code of conduct is "destroy undead that you know will harm nothing except by their existance, at the cost of anything else. and i've been to alot of regions, and all of them have laws against undead in general, if not very specific lists of what is allowed and what is not.......... You are correct. However, a character needs pay only as much attention to a region's laws as they wish. There are only in game consequences to such things. A responsible player would of course try to avoid bringing the authorites down on themselves or the party, but they need not feel hogtied by the laws.
Sieylianna 03-04-06, 05:20 PM	You are incorrect. In LG you are allowed to commit evil acts. It can only *potentially* take your character away. The way it works is character x casts animate dead. The judge warns the players that it is an evil act. The player replies his character feels it helps the greater good of the mission. The judge says very well and play continues. At the end of the session a note is made on the AR and the judge reports the action to the triad. They read the email saying a character raised fallen foes to help the party, after which the undead were dismissed. You may be unpleasantly surprised. If you commit an evil act at one of my tables, there is an excellent chance that you'll find yourself out of the module and potentially the campaign. But that is for an evil action, not casting a spell with the evil descriptor. Should you animate dead and the cleric dusts them, that's role-playing. If you attack the cleric, you lose your PC. Otherwise, it's a question of whether one or both players are being disruptive, and then we get into the RPGA rules. Ed
Ancillary 03-04-06, 07:13 PM	The scenario I outlined dealt with animating dead, as that is the manner at hand. If it read as a condonement of other types of evil acts other than casting spells with an evil descriptor, that was not my intent. I believe the animated dead to be an asset of the character. I do not believe turning undead without the presence of hostile undead is anything more than a hostile act. It is no different than casting dismissal on someone else's summoned creature, or just running up and whacking it. Would a cleric with the earth domain be justified turning an air elemental that had just been summoned? A character cannot use role-playing to justify acting against another player. I do not believe turning undead is distinctive in this regard, based on anything in the rules.
Objulen 03-04-06, 07:32 PM	Should you animate dead and the cleric dusts them, that's role-playing. If you attack the cleric, you lose your PC. Ed Which is quickly reaching a double-standard. A character spends gold on Animate Dead to create undead that benefit the character, which isn't any different than spending gold on a sword. If a cleric can justify destroying something that the characters spent gold on as "role-playing" because he/she doesn't like undead, then a player can justify sundering items because of some RP reason. Can an Occult Slayer go around sundering other character's items (especially more caster based ones, like staves) because her character hates magic (despite the double standard, but hey, that's rping -- plenty of rl characters are just as irrational), or just because he/she "was scarred by an axe"? Can a character who hates wolves take it out on a druid's animal companion? What about going after a wizard's familiar? That's a pretty nasty penalty to have to deal with a minimum xp loss of 100 * level (200 * lvl max) and wait a year because someone's decided they don't like your character and is trying to use an RP reason to justify hurting your character. It's pretty rediculous to say that a character isn't attacking another because he/she isn't doing anything directly to that character.
rutrow424 03-05-06, 01:37 PM	Which is quickly reaching a double-standard. A character spends gold on Animate Dead to create undead that benefit the character, which isn't any different than spending gold on a sword. If a cleric can justify destroying something that the characters spent gold on as "role-playing" because he/she doesn't like undead, then a player can justify sundering items because of some RP reason. Can an Occult Slayer go around sundering other character's items (especially more caster based ones, like staves) because her character hates magic (despite the double standard, but hey, that's rping -- plenty of rl characters are just as irrational), or just because he/she "was scarred by an axe"? Can a character who hates wolves take it out on a druid's animal companion? What about going after a wizard's familiar? That's a pretty nasty penalty to have to deal with a minimum xp loss of 100 * level (200 * lvl max) and wait a year because someone's decided they don't like your character and is trying to use an RP reason to justify hurting your character. It's pretty rediculous to say that a character isn't attacking another because he/she isn't doing anything directly to that character. I'm all for PCs animating dead in LG, but you also have to realize that actively "owning" undead is a significant difference than having a familar, an animal companion, or other items. Many PCs will have just cause to destroy your undead - good-aligned divine types (clerics/paladins/FS), those in regional authority or law enforcement, or just plain those who wish the local laws against undead be enforced - or suffer consequences themselves. They may wait until after the "greater good" has been served, but that does not allow them to simply turn a blind eye either. In such instances you may want to consider your animations as "charges" from a wand, or reconsider doing it in the first place. If we want to have a more mature campaign that allows for the flawed hero, or the use of evil to combat evil, then we have to accept the responsibility to not make the campaign worse off because of it. If that means the necromancer PC can only create undead rarely, and will have to have those undead destroyed at mod's end (which would happen anyway I would guess, since spell effects are not allowed to carry over), then so be it.
Objulen 03-05-06, 04:03 PM	I'm all for PCs animating dead in LG, but you also have to realize that actively "owning" undead is a significant difference than having a familar, an animal companion, or other items. Many PCs will have just cause to destroy your undead - good-aligned divine types (clerics/paladins/FS), those in regional authority or law enforcement, or just plain those who wish the local laws against undead be enforced - or suffer consequences themselves. They may wait until after the "greater good" has been served, but that does not allow them to simply turn a blind eye either. In such instances you may want to consider your animations as "charges" from a wand, or reconsider doing it in the first place. If we want to have a more mature campaign that allows for the flawed hero, or the use of evil to combat evil, then we have to accept the responsibility to not make the campaign worse off because of it. If that means the necromancer PC can only create undead rarely, and will have to have those undead destroyed at mod's end (which would happen anyway I would guess, since spell effects are not allowed to carry over), then so be it. Undead created during a game go away at the end of the session, unless it is a mulitsession campaign, as per the rules for spell durations; what I'm talking about here is intentional griefing of another player, which is rather hard to deny when the created minnions have to go away (unless some campaign documentation says otherwise) anyway. The only real reason a player would have to say "Greater Turning! Ooopse" is griefing. For example: a wizard summons an evil outsider for some reason (There's a lake of lava! Summon a devil to get the magic item we need take bring it back). The Knight of the Chalice attacks and kills the devil before it can do what it needs to get done, because that player is "RPing her/his character." That's griefing, even if it has an RP justification. This is a standard that needs to be universal for decent gameplay for everyone. Spells are temporary, but several cost gold. Is it ok for some cleric to use Dispel Magic on Stone Skin because it offends her/his faith in some way? What about the above Occult Slayer deciding to sunder items or slay familiars? What about an Alienist's (another flawed hero) familiar? It's psuedonatural, which means it comes from the mean, evil, nasty Far Realms. Does that make it, or the pseudonatural monsters summoned by the Alienist, fair game for clerics who think it's Tharizdun spawn? A cleric going "Greater Turning! Ooopse" may have more in-game reasons for the act than other character types trying to justify assaulting another PC with RP reasons, but griefing is griefing, and allowing one specific form of griefing is just opening the door for other griefers who use that one as an example to ligitimize their behavior (and if you don't believe me, you have seen some of the stupidity that players have pulled at OWBN games).
rutrow424 03-05-06, 04:54 PM	Undead created during a game go away at the end of the session, unless it is a mulitsession campaign, as per the rules for spell durations; what I'm talking about here is intentional griefing of another player, which is rather hard to deny when the created minnions have to go away (unless some campaign documentation says otherwise) anyway. The only real reason a player would have to say "Greater Turning! Ooopse" is griefing. We have to separate the meta-game from the in-game for these instances. At the beginning of the mod, the players need to discuss their PCs to determine relative abilities and if there are any potential conflicts. I think we can all agree that relatively mature players can agree on parameters ahead of time. If conflicts can't be solved, then someone either needs to play a different PC or move along. In most cases, the necromancer will need to tone down the creepy side; but if the cleric is the odd man out at the table, he will have to suck it up. Also, good RPing would state that the PCs don't know that the undead are going away at mod's end. If the situation was not discussed beforehand and came up during play, again the PCs/players (ideally among ALL the players) would need to come to an arrangement - and that may be in favor of one or the other, or a middle ground. The DM and regions may play parts in this also - if the cleric is threatened with losing class abilities or regional benefits by letting the necro create undead, common sense and courtesy says that the necro player s/b the one to give in. If the DM is doing a good job, he should enforce such restrictions on PCs when applicable - the majority of regions and good faiths are anti-undead, some extremely so. Those restrictions may also include punishment for the necro if turned in to authorities (ie the Triad). For example: a wizard summons an evil outsider for some reason (There's a lake of lava! Summon a devil to get the magic item we need take bring it back). The Knight of the Chalice attacks and kills the devil before it can do what it needs to get done, because that player is "RPing her/his character." That's griefing, even if it has an RP justification. Again, mature players should discuss this before it happens and becomes a problem. Since the wizard could summon something else, it is easily avoided. If the wizard surprises the KotC, it is unlikely he could slay it before it did its task. Then the RP situation (distrust, anger, etc) could be played out. This is a standard that needs to be universal for decent gameplay for everyone. Spells are temporary, but several cost gold. Is it ok for some cleric to use Dispel Magic on Stone Skin because it offends her/his faith in some way? What about the above Occult Slayer deciding to sunder items or slay familiars? What about an Alienist's (another flawed hero) familiar? It's psuedonatural, which means it comes from the mean, evil, nasty Far Realms. Does that make it, or the pseudonatural monsters summoned by the Alienist, fair game for clerics who think it's Tharizdun spawn? A cleric going "Greater Turning! Ooopse" may have more in-game reasons for the act than other character types trying to justify assaulting another PC with RP reasons, but griefing is griefing, and allowing one specific form of griefing is just opening the door for other griefers who use that one as an example to ligitimize their behavior (and if you don't believe me, you have seen some of the stupidity that players have pulled at OWBN games). I'll avoid more of the case-by-case rebuttal: All of these situations are avoidable by mature players. The campaign rules require that players create PCs that "get along" under most circumstances. If we want PCs that blur the lines (and I do) the onus is on those of us who want a necromancer, or an alientist, or whatever (btw Occult Slayer does not necessarily mean Forsaker) to play nice for all involved. That means making it so the paladin or cleric can participate without jeopardizing their PC's alignment, despite what our necromancer wants to do. It also means tolerating that not every PC is good, or that every once in a while someone has pretend to be BA from the A-Team (tricked or knocked out to continue participating in harmony) or Louis from Casablanca (I'm shocked that there's a necromancer with us!). Remember - if there are problems with these cases, the Circle is far more likely to ban evil spells than paladins or clerics of Pelor!
pedr 03-05-06, 05:03 PM	I don't want to get too far involved in this discussion but ... my Cleric of Pelor (L5, heading for RSoP) was recently involved in a module where it was very handy that the wizard in the group cast 'Command Undead' and, um, borrowed one nasty which was beating up on the main fighter, setting it to work on the other one. It was once the encounter was over and the party wanted us to keep our new 'pet' that this seemed somewhat difficult to justify in character and eventually (the greater turn attempt having failed) I convinced the party that they'd prefer to have a cleric with them than said undead nasty and it was commanded to tear itself to bits and bury itself (mindlessly, it obeyed). The DM indicated that had I gone along with the wishes of the rest of the party I'd have been left needing an Atonement... a conclusion with which I fully agree. In D&D, Clerics get their power in return for upholding their deities' tenets. Grossly breaching those should lead to the loss of powers - and a Pelorite consorting with mindless undead is clearly a gross breach of the tenets of the Sun God. Out of character, I'm not sure how to get round this aside from recognising it as an issue. And after all, as my cleric has no ranks in Knowledge (Planes) he didn't object when the same wizard later summoned a lemure to help us!
JohnduBois 03-05-06, 06:26 PM	Why does everyone think the Far Realms are home to a bunch of "mean, evil, nasty" things? From my readings in Complete Arcane, I was led to believe it was the realm beyond the border of sanity. This implies a predominance of chaos, not evil (which may also be why the Alienist PrClass has a "nonlawful" requirement instead of a "nongood" one). Heck, my Favored Soul of Trithereon, who embraces the chaotic, is trying to find access to Alienist so that he can further his deity's crusade against excessively lawful churches (and yes, I do live in a region where the other major churches are Hieroneous, Rao, Mayaheine, and Cuthbert). Speaking of which, is there a place I can read about the Far Realms beyond the Alienist and Pseudonatural creature descriptions? It sounds like an interesting place.
Objulen 03-05-06, 10:25 PM	We have to separate the meta-game from the in-game for these instances. At the beginning of the mod, the players need to discuss their PCs to determine relative abilities and if there are any potential conflicts. I think we can all agree that relatively mature players can agree on parameters ahead of time. If conflicts can't be solved, then someone either needs to play a different PC or move along. In most cases, the necromancer will need to tone down the creepy side; but if the cleric is the odd man out at the table, he will have to suck it up. And I would agree. Certain individuals have expressed opinions that reveal a sense of entitlement otherwise, which is my concern. Also, good RPing would state that the PCs don't know that the undead are going away at mod's end. Maybe not, but then again, any sensible wizard would cast wish 5 times for a +5 inherent enhancement bonus to INT, except if he/she were metagaming, because that would go away at a very high xp cost. And how does the character explain not having the skeletons around for the next AR? The change in spells requires a bit of metagaming when something with a permanent duration goes to a limited duration. I'll avoid more of the case-by-case rebuttal: All of these situations are avoidable by mature players. The campaign rules require that players create PCs that "get along" under most circumstances. If we want PCs that blur the lines (and I do) the onus is on those of us who want a necromancer, or an alientist, or whatever (btw Occult Slayer does not necessarily mean Forsaker) to play nice for all involved. That means making it so the paladin or cleric can participate without jeopardizing their PC's alignment, despite what our necromancer wants to do. It also means tolerating that not every PC is good, or that every once in a while someone has pretend to be BA from the A-Team (tricked or knocked out to continue participating in harmony) or Louis from Casablanca (I'm shocked that there's a necromancer with us!). Which is where we reach the case in point; griefers aren't exactly the types to discuss things or be reasonable. Mature players should be able to work things out, but taking the moral high ground in-game when you've made no such effort to rach an agreement out of game and assaulting the dark/anti-hero's summons, etc., falls into the catagory of griefing. As for the Occult Slayer, it does not mean forsaker, but it can be used as an RP griefing tool against other players, which was the point. Remember - if there are problems with these cases, the Circle is far more likely to ban evil spells than paladins or clerics of Pelor! That is true; however, the issue is disruption, i.e. by players who are not willing to discuss things and reach an accord in a mature fasion. However, certain things can be justified, if the situation is dire enough. If we go with the RSoP, for example, Pelor's description states one of his teachings, "...but remember that just as staring at the sun can blind the eyes, relentless attention to the destruction of negative forces can blind the heart to the true essentials of life: kindness, mercy, and compassion." A RSoP could easily justify overlooking associating with a necromancer who occasionally used undead with this; the example of Command Undead is a perfect example of an instance where an exception could be made -- Pelor is about the destruction of evil, but he's even more about kindness, mercy, and compassion, so it seems reasonable to conclude that if a RSoP's allies do some things that are a bit evil for greater kindness, mercy, and compassion; indeed, it does make one wonder what Pelor's response would be to a communion spell regaurding a kind, merciful, and compassionate necromancer who uses mindless undead, the forcess of darkness, to protect the light. Is this an instance where one needs to not pay attention to the destruction of negative forces and pay more attention to the aforementioned virtues? Of course, if I ever see a RSoP run into a deathless in LG, I'm going to laugh myself silly, "It's dead...must destroy...can't turn...only control....AAAAAA!!!!"
Objulen 03-05-06, 10:36 PM	Why does everyone think the Far Realms are home to a bunch of "mean, evil, nasty" things? From my readings in Complete Arcane, I was led to believe it was the realm beyond the border of sanity. This implies a predominance of chaos, not evil (which may also be why the Alienist PrClass has a "nonlawful" requirement instead of a "nongood" one). Heck, my Favored Soul of Trithereon, who embraces the chaotic, is trying to find access to Alienist so that he can further his deity's crusade against excessively lawful churches (and yes, I do live in a region where the other major churches are Hieroneous, Rao, Mayaheine, and Cuthbert). Speaking of which, is there a place I can read about the Far Realms beyond the Alienist and Pseudonatural creature descriptions? It sounds like an interesting place. That would come from the little blurb in the Alienist's description that basically says that the Far Realms, and the beings that dwell there, are worse than fiends, the Abyss, and the Nine Hells. What you must understand is that stereotypical D&D is very black-and-white. We're good, and things like us are good, things that are creepy are evil, and the less something is like us, the eviler it is, unless it's really, really cool, like dragons, and then there will be good and evil ones. Undead are universally evil, with a few exceptions in D&D for just this reason. Aberrations similarly occupy the positions of adversaries, mostly because tentacles and aliens are creepy, and the Far Realms falls into that niche (i.e. Cthulu). It is somewhat of a stereotype, but there are many examples to back it up. Note that there a few allowances for players to choose characters who don't fit this mold, such as the Alienist, or neutral gods with the death domain, etc. Greyhawk, being one of the more archetypical D&D gaming worlds, fits this mold. Just take Tharizdun. Now, there is a single deity whose name I can not remember who has an unkown origin, and is alien, but still humanoid (see the above -- if it's like us, it's ok)
Arvagor 03-06-06, 12:47 AM	Speaking of which, is there a place I can read about the Far Realms beyond the Alienist and Pseudonatural creature descriptions? It sounds like an interesting place.Manual of the Planes, pages 211-213. Or any writings by H.P. Lovecraft... :coolcthul
Mortepierre 03-06-06, 03:52 AM	Why does everyone think the Far Realms are home to a bunch of "mean, evil, nasty" things? It's classified as "evil" because, given a chance, those entities will try to 'convert' our reality (read: physical laws) to theirs. And the latter is very inimical to our realm's inhabitants (unless you don't mind growing a third eye on a tentacle..) Really, the justification can be found in this old (2e) mod. http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/gfp.htm which was, basically, an "invader from the Xth dimension" type of story (very well done though). If you're still not convinced, take a look at the Kaorti in the Fiend Folio. What happened to the first ones can hardly be classified as "good"... Frankly, I am amazed at how little the current Alienist PrC 'changes' a character. If you were playing one back in 2e, you were just asking for a one-way ticket to the nearest asylum! Now, it's just a convenient way to slap a template on monsters you summon. Speaking of which, is there a place I can read about the Far Realms beyond the Alienist and Pseudonatural creature descriptions? It sounds like an interesting place. Beyond the Manual of the Planes, Dragon #330 and Lords of Madness also have info on it.
Objulen 03-06-06, 08:55 AM	Frankly, I am amazed at how little the current Alienist PrC 'changes' a character. If you were playing one back in 2e, you were just asking for a one-way ticket to the nearest asylum! Now, it's just a convenient way to slap a template on monsters you summon. What do you think that the -10 penalty to diplomacy, bluff, and handle animal checks is about?
gomeztoo 03-06-06, 09:21 AM	I don't know about the Far Realms, but animating dead is an evil act on my table, and I'll note it down as such. And I have several chars who would not easily accept undead animated by a party member. Bad enough that they would either kill the undead or leave the party. The point is: you create a character for a game where you generally work together for the greater good. If you create a nasty borderline evil character that animates undead, that is fine, but I expect that you will find a way to compromise and thus not always use the nastiest abilities. In general it is not the cleric being forced to act against evil that is wrong, but the necromancer that created the conflict. There are, of course, always exceptions.
Objulen 03-06-06, 09:42 AM	If you create a nasty borderline evil character that animates undead, that is fine, but I expect that you will find a way to compromise and thus not always use the nastiest abilities. I find it incredibly ammusing that the best evil description that can generally be used for animating undead are along the lines of "nasty". He vomited on the rug! That's so nasty, he must be evil!
Mortepierre 03-06-06, 10:26 AM	What do you think that the -10 penalty to diplomacy, bluff, and handle animal checks is about? Cosmetic disadvantages only. As if an Alienist conjurer made frequent use of Handle Animal or was supposed to be the party's diplomat. Come on! Those aren't even class skills for a wizard. I am mad but the only outward sign is that cats no longer want to sit on my lap. Ooooooh, nasty! :rolleyes:
Objulen 03-06-06, 10:30 AM	Cosmetic disadvantages only. As if an Alienist conjurer made frequent use of Handle Animal or was supposed to be the party's diplomat. Come on! Those aren't even class skills for a wizard. I am mad but the only outward sign is that cats no longer want to sit on my lap. Ooooooh, nasty! :rolleyes: No, it's that you can no longer relate to others with any real ability; by most people's standards, you are mad. It just doesn't have any stronger mechanical effect that this because it's not needed; the Alienist is a nicely balanced class. It's is a cosmetic disadvantage to a degree, but it's meant for flavor more than anything else. You don't have to take a massive hit to wisdom to have insights and perspectives that make you incomphrenensible to those around you. And it's only "cats no longer want to sit in my lap" if handled incorrectly. People who meet the alienst should whisper about her/him, how strange he/she is, how mad he/she is. They would avoid her/him, fear her/him, and wonder what strange things that wizard is consorting with. A -10 penalty is massive; you probably won't succeed another diplomacy or bluff roll again; that signifies more than being only a bit out-of-sink.
Dominick 03-06-06, 04:32 PM	I find it incredibly ammusing that the best evil description that can generally be used for animating undead are along the lines of "nasty". Human bones, flesh and brains do not come from a plant. A living person must live in them for some odd years. You then are using the vessel they lived in for decades without consent of the owner, in some cases removing them from the repose of the God they worshipped and commanding them as a slave. Considering they are done with the bodies, or that the body is a empty shell anyway is only one world view, and not the view of most in a fantasy setting. If a good aligned Cleric saw such a thing as animation by a PC, they should turn to slay the animator, at the very least turn the newly created undead and arrest the PC on the spot. Commanding undead may not be regarded as evil as this, but, I agree with the rulings above. So, "nasty" is a straw man characterization of the deeper mores of most good alignments, when you consider that the corpse of the fallen is the focus of relating to the soul of the fallen. Speak with dead needs a corpse, raise dead needs a corpse, and defiling a corpse by using animate dead, makes it impossible to raise the corpse. It has to do something tangible to the corpse, in other words something evil.
Mortepierre 03-06-06, 04:37 PM	No, it's that you can no longer relate to others with any real ability; by most people's standards, you are mad. It just doesn't have any stronger mechanical effect that this because it's not needed; the Alienist is a nicely balanced class. It's is a cosmetic disadvantage to a degree, but it's meant for flavor more than anything else. You don't have to take a massive hit to wisdom to have insights and perspectives that make you incomphrenensible to those around you. Yes, but how often do you see that come into play? Usually, the alienist's companions will treat him the same as anyone and, if the party needs to talk to a NPC, the cleric/paladin will handle the Diplomacy check, never mind the wizard with an eyestalk not two feet away...
Ancillary 03-06-06, 08:03 PM	If a paladin can turn a living orc into a corpse without being evil, a necromancer can animate that corpse without being evil. I would consider both acts to be evil, but both justifiable for the greater good of the party.
Objulen 03-06-06, 08:21 PM	Human bones, flesh and brains do not come from a plant. A living person must live in them for some odd years. You then are using the vessel they lived in for decades without consent of the owner, in some cases removing them from the repose of the God they worshipped and commanding them as a slave. 1) Unless you actually killed that person, then it isn't their body anymore; her/his spirit has moved onto another plane, and is happy in the afterlife. It's no different than if you used that person's organs for transplants or for medicle research; all claim to physical possessions is left behind. Now, you may argue along the rights of inheritance; the deceased has the right to choose where its body goes. However, bodies can be sold, or claimed as spoils under the laws of war that make the sword of the orc you slew in an adventure yours. The only time that this would be an issue is if the recipient is going to recieve a Raise Dead or equivelent spell, then there's nothing wrong with using an Ogre, whose body is now your booty, and who isn't getting such a spell (nor would you want the creature to, since it probably is going to do more evil for the standard ogre), there's nothing wrong about it. 2) You can't trap a spirit as long as you are careful about it; not even spells like True Ressurection can call a spirit back from the afterlife without the spirit's consent, so unless you create the undead before the spirit has time to move on, it can not be trapped. Considering they are done with the bodies, or that the body is a empty shell anyway is only one world view, and not the view of most in a fantasy setting. Most fantasy settings still follow the general rules on warfare -- anything that the creature you slew possessed, which would include its body, is now up for grabs. If a good aligned Cleric saw such a thing as animation by a PC, they should turn to slay the animator, at the very least turn the newly created undead and arrest the PC on the spot. Commanding undead may not be regarded as evil as this, but, I agree with the rulings above. Which has no place in law if the body was not improperly procured and the undead created in the proper fasion, so that you have legal rights to the body and the spirit is not trapped. If you create mindless undead, there's no issue of trapping the spirit. So, "nasty" is a straw man characterization of the deeper mores of most good alignments, when you consider that the corpse of the fallen is the focus of relating to the soul of the fallen. No, it's a simple fact that the only reason it's considered evil by the game is because it's "nasty". As I pointed above, there are legal ways to get a body. Speak with dead needs a corpse, raise dead needs a corpse, and defiling a corpse by using animate dead, makes it impossible to raise the corpse. No it doesn't. Ressurection can restore an undead creature to life, as long as the undead creature is willing or has been destroyed. True Ressurection does the same. The only issue is that Raise Dead is less powerful magic; if creating undead is considered defiling a corpse for this reason, then the same applies to all death magic and spells that destroy the body, such as Disintegrate, which also prevent the use of Raise Dead, but not Ressurection It has to do something tangible to the corpse, in other words something evil. Nothing different than death magic or something that destroys the body; then you only need more powerful magics. See above.
Objulen 03-06-06, 08:48 PM	Yes, but how often do you see that come into play? Usually, the alienist's companions will treat him the same as anyone and, if the party needs to talk to a NPC, the cleric/paladin will handle the Diplomacy check, never mind the wizard with an eyestalk not two feet away... That depends on the DM. The party will probably treat the character more-or-less the same, but if the DM gives the alienist the odd random diplomacy roll every once in a while, it will hurt, since the party's "face" has to make excuses for the alienist. Further, the alienist is incredibly dependant on others in her/his party. If her/his psuedonatural familiar is around, then there may be bigger issues as well, especially since the alienist sees nothing wrong at all about the familiar. Imagine, for example, an alienist trucking around town with (via Improved Familiar) a pseudonatural blink dog. People are probably going to run for cover, and the somewhat tense questions asked to the alienist probably aren't going to go well. "Is that a creature of Tharizdun?" "Tharizdun...they touch everything...always looking in..." Now, the character may worship Zagyg, or even Tsolorandril (though its philosophy is antithetical to the PrC, it is an alien creature) might stuble upon a better case, but the character is going to fail the diplomacy check, and with her/his obvious oddness, he/she is probably going to be distrusted at best. But as I said, it is more for flavor than anything else; it's something you roleplay more than something that directly hurts you in combat..
Dominick 03-06-06, 10:11 PM	1) Unless you actually killed that person, then it isn't their body anymore; her/his spirit has moved onto another plane, and is happy in the afterlife. It's no different than if you used that person's organs for transplants or for medicle research; all claim to physical possessions is left behind. This is a 20th century concept, not a fantasy concept. You asked for an explanation, and the 20th century concept is insufficient to explain the ruling. There are no transplants in LG. There are no athiests in LG. Who could tell Pelor, "I don't believe in you!", rather, most people have a respect for the beings in the astral planes, that call themselves gods. Same applies to the alienist arguement, you are attuned to beinging so removed from the multiverse, you can not longer relate well and play well with others. That they could be accepted for "diversity" is a 20th century concept. It is not based in literature. Lovecraft worte a lot about men appearing and going mad in learning about the Elder ones, and the unmentionables. I think that is a better way to look at it, not the 20th century politically correct concept. If we take classical thought as a guide, the body is a persons most intimate posession. On death even letting the body rot is better than desecration. Killing a foe, for a good PC is a noble duty, not a reason to take thier stuff. Taking thier stuff, and th corpse for experiments are the actions of a brigand. No PC can be a brigand of this type in LG. So the nominally good PC, could take what goods the being had, and not claim the corpse per se. They would not start eating the flesh of a sentient being, and they would not use animate dead on corpses. As proof I can offer plenty of examples. Why would so many wards defend the tombs of long dead mages and kings in Greyhawk? Why are the city tombs so well warded? Even on real Earth, massive tombs, such as the pyramids, were built with traps, locks and impassible archtecture. The corpse is indeed NOT done with the body, and ownership in game of the corpse in not transferred to the living. Even with monsters, you would be desecrating the Orge's body. Perhaps any Ogres observing this would be able to enlist the help of other nominally warring tribes to combat a greater foe who desecrates the dead. The Egyptians thought that without the corpse, the "Pak" or soul of the dead person would wander aimlessly. The greeks thought the body was the seat of the soul and an unburied corpse meant the soul was in torment, and was an offense that cried out to the gods for vengence. Even today the Catholic Church prefers a person to be buried and not creamated, even though the practice is liberalized. Saying the rulings agains necromancy are rooted in the "nasty" outlook, is not true. Ostensibly this has as it's root many works of literature, which all talk about necromancy as a curse, or an overtly evil act. Even in the most egregious case, in Tolkien, the undead were commanded by the true King to complete a quest of redemption, and to be allowed to rest. It was tempting but yet it was understood that it would be an evil act to harness the undead as slaves. The preponderance of literature that this game and mileu is based on do not support the "nasty" theory, nor do they support the 20th century concept of the body is a shell and is expended upon death.
Objulen 03-07-06, 12:53 PM	This is a 20th century concept, not a fantasy concept. No, it's a D&D concept in the form of grafts, which often use parts from various creatures. You asked for an explanation, and the 20th century concept is insufficient to explain the ruling. I wanted a valid explination, not something that has enough holes in its story to run for office. There are no transplants in LG. Grafts exist in LG, and are not considred evil. There are no athiests in LG. Sure there are. You can't deny the existance of the gods, but that doesn't mean that you place any faith in them, Athar style. Who could tell Pelor, "I don't believe in you!", rather, most people have a respect for the beings in the astral planes, that call themselves gods. But you could say, "I have no faith in you, and you are nothing more than a Person with Power (TM). You have no right to command others, and there is no reason for me to give you the faith you would like." Same applies to the alienist arguement, you are attuned to beinging so removed from the multiverse, you can not longer relate well and play well with others. That they could be accepted for "diversity" is a 20th century concept. It is not based in literature. Lovecraft worte a lot about men appearing and going mad in learning about the Elder ones, and the unmentionables. I think that is a better way to look at it, not the 20th century politically correct concept. 1) There is a d20 Call of Cthulu. It's not D&D. Evils in the Far Realms certain is a component, and Lovecraft's work played its part in D&D, but it is a waste of good material to make every single aberration or Far Realm entity inherently evil. Alien =/= evil. 2) Equality is also a 20th century notion; should we throw that out as well, and start condoning racism in the game because it's not a medieval concept? We are talking about the ethics and morals of creatures from the Far Realms, or the ethics and morals of things like creating undead. Given that D&D uses modern ethics, selective approaches to this are cheap and break continuity. If you want to argue on the basis that we should use literary and other sources, then fine, we can start by putting sexism, racism, rampant abuses of the lower class by higher classes, etc., back into the game, since that's not only historically accurate, it's also accurate from the literature of the time. If we take classical thought as a guide, the body is a persons most intimate posession. On death even letting the body rot is better than desecration. Killing a foe, for a good PC is a noble duty, not a reason to take thier stuff. Taking thier stuff, and th corpse for experiments are the actions of a brigand. No PC can be a brigand of this type in LG. So the nominally good PC, could take what goods the being had, and not claim the corpse per se. They would not start eating the flesh of a sentient being, and they would not use animate dead on corpses. 1) Actually, good characters descrate bodies all the time to prevent ressurection of the person. If you just slew the lvl 20 Iuz/Vecna/whatever wannabe, do you want her/him coming back to cause more problems? I think not. Making it so the BBEG can't come back without a True Ressurection is a common tactic. Also note spells like trap the soul, which prevent the spirit of the BBEG from reaching the after-life, and doesn't have an evil descriptor, unlike creating mindless undead. Desecrating the dead is frowned upon due to cultural reasons and because it causes problems with ressurection. None of these apply when you are making a skeleton out of an ogre, and social protections for the dead often are not given to criminials, especially ones of the worst stripes. 2) Good characters aren't brigands. It doesn't mean anything however, since the laws on war booty don't apply to brigands anyway, who are criminals. If you are battling the enemies of society, such as ogres, orcs, etc. in the forest, you have claim to that creature's possessions. Now, there are generally taxes and the like on this, but are you honestly going to say that the LG Paladin doesn't loot creatures he/she's slain? Bodies would fall into this catagory as well. 3) Cannibalism is generally a universal taboo, but then again, if the good guys were fighting goblins on worgs or battling winter wolves, there's nothing against eating the worgs or the wolves. The same would thus apply to raising them. Further, the taboo against cannibalism wouldn't apply to creatures like ogres, who aren't being eaten. As proof I can offer plenty of examples. Why would so many wards defend the tombs of long dead mages and kings in Greyhawk? Why are the city tombs so well warded? Even on real Earth, massive tombs, such as the pyramids, were built with traps, locks and impassible archtecture. The corpse is indeed NOT done with the body, and ownership in game of the corpse in not transferred to the living. Even with monsters, you would be desecrating the Orge's body. Perhaps any Ogres observing this would be able to enlist the help of other nominally warring tribes to combat a greater foe who desecrates the dead. Except you wouldn't be desicrating the body of an ogre. Sure, wizards and nobles get placed in warded tombs. Pesants get buried in graveyards with proper rights and all that good stuff. Criminals? They get buried by the cross roads. Take suicides for example. They were ritually desecrated in medieval Europe before being buried, and interred at the crossroads, because they were banned from being buried in sacred ground. Those who follow social standards recieve the protection of society, including its laws on the proper treatment of the dead. Creatures outside society -- like ogres -- and those who violate the law in grevious ways -- such as medieval suicides, or criminals such as pirate and brigands -- are not afforded such protections. The Egyptians thought that without the corpse, the "Pak" or soul of the dead person would wander aimlessly. The greeks thought the body was the seat of the soul and an unburied corpse meant the soul was in torment, and was an offense that cried out to the gods for vengence. Even today the Catholic Church prefers a person to be buried and not creamated, even though the practice is liberalized. And your point? None of these has anything to do with D&D cosmology. Spirits go to their appropriate afterlife unless some effect traps them, or they are willing to be raised. It is totaly irrelevent to the conversation. Saying the rulings agains necromancy are rooted in the "nasty" outlook, is not true. Ostensibly this has as it's root many works of literature, which all talk about necromancy as a curse, or an overtly evil act. Except they are. You have yet to present any reason for why the practiced is evil except for the fact that it is nasty. Desecration of the dead is higly cultural, and the spirit of the dead is not trapped or subjugated if the proper precautions are taken. Even in the most egregious case, in Tolkien, the undead were commanded by the true King to complete a quest of redemption, and to be allowed to rest. It was tempting but yet it was understood that it would be an evil act to harness the undead as slaves. No it wasn't. The reason why Aragorn was against that was because the Dead were traitors, cursed for their disloyalty; given that treason was one of the worst offenses you could do in the general mythology that LotR drew from, this isn't surprising. It had little, if anything, to do with the fact that he was commanding the dead. Further, D&D borrowed so heavily from LotR that referencing it is almost like referencing D&D; any point raised is circular logic. The preponderance of literature that this game and mileu is based on do not support the "nasty" theory, nor do they support the 20th century concept of the body is a shell and is expended upon death. This is only a subsection of literature that you are referencing. What about Wraith: the Oblivion? Vampire: the Masquerade? Mage: the Ascension? Making zombies (or being one) isn't evil in any of those games (even in the medieval, high fantasy versions of those games). What about stories with helpful undead, or aliens? Should Eberron make warforged evil because thinking machines are evil in Dune? The truth of the matter is that D&D basically uses modern ethics when it is convient, and tosses them out when they aren't, and attempts to use arguments along the lines of what you're making to explain the disparity. Racism, sexism, class-abuse, and other sorts of similar behavior that were perfectly acceptable and normal historically and literarily, being under good behavior, but 99.9% of aberrations, undead, and creatures from the Far Realms are evil "because the literature paints them that way"? Sorry, that doesn't cut it. If we are going to go by the literature, then there should be restrictions on female characters being fighter types, since that didn't happen very often in LotR, or let out of the house in certain areas, because, hey, that's what they did in the Ottoman Empire. There's nothing about being alien, even so alien that regular humans can't comprehend you, or a walking corpse, that makes it evil, good, or anything else except alien or being a walking corpse. Now, there certainly are factors that would drive certain creature sub-sections towards evil, such as undead feeders (if they must prey on sentients), but aberrations and Far Realms entities really have no reason for being mostly evil anymore than there is a reason for humanoids, dragons, or any other creature type with creatures running the gamut of good and evil for only being in one alignment. There are more stories about alien creatures than Lovecraft. The only creatures that have a thematic justificaiton for being evil, good, etc most of the time are outsiders, who are generally alignment exemplars and are living embodyments of certain alignments or concepts, which isn't the case with other creature types.
Dominick 03-07-06, 01:08 PM	You missed the point in what I said. You are applying 20th century soul-body concept to a fantasy setting which is as out of place as a light bulb. Thanks for trying though. The truth of the matter is that D&D basically uses modern ethics when it is convient, and tosses them out when they aren't, and attempts to use arguments along the lines of what you're making to explain the disparity. The disparity where? You asked the question, and simply can't accept the preponderance of fantasy literature, even gothic vampire books, paint such desecrations as evil acts. They paint dabblers in those forbidden arts as "damned, damned, and thrice dammed" or some such clumsy language. Racism, sexism, class-abuse, and other sorts of similar behavior that were perfectly acceptable and normal historically and literarily, being under good behavior, Those do not fall under good alignment. Claim what you like, but from way back, those are not good acts. but 99.9% of aberrations, undead, and creatures from the Far Realms are evil "because the literature paints them that way"? IF you read Lovecraft, and IF you read other canonical books or stories, you would understand that the concept for the Elder beings or Far Realm went beyond those definitions, even though the chaotic and uncaring nature in this realm makes them unacceptable to authorities here. My point in mentioning them was not what you answered.
Objulen 03-07-06, 05:47 PM	You missed the point in what I said. You are applying 20th century soul-body concept to a fantasy setting which is as out of place as a light bulb. Thanks for trying though. No, I'm going by history and what the game does. The cosmology of the game is clearly delinated in the CD, which is common knowledge for any character with enough Knowledge: Religion. The rest is historic. Different cultures throughout history have different standards of what consititues desecration of the dead and on whom these standards apply to , which means that making a blanket statement that creating undead as being desecration of the undead is simply incorrect. The disparity where? You asked the question, and simply can't accept the preponderance of fantasy literature, even gothic vampire books, paint such desecrations as evil acts. They paint dabblers in those forbidden arts as "damned, damned, and thrice dammed" or some such clumsy language. Or, we can look over at the Elderscrolls series, where the king of Daggerfall is selling the bodies of pirates and other such criminals to necromancers to discourage these crimes. Again, it depends on what culture and what stories we are talking about. And no, there are vampire books that don't paint desecration of the dead as a thrice-damnable offense. I'd imagine that anything with the Capadocians in it takes a wider view. Those do not fall under good alignment. Claim what you like, but from way back, those are not good acts. You missed my point. Racism, sexism, and class-abuses are all historically acceptable behaviors, including in literature (for an example of condoned sexism, just read The Taming of the Shrew). We don't agree with these things today, but for the medieval mind, they were norms of behavior that were perfectly acceptable and justified. For example, a woman's place in the home was considered part of the natural order, and Jews were subject to persecution for reasons varying from that they were the children of Satan to closing their eyes to the "truth". This is why your argument is falacious -- you state that we should go by the literature when it comes to undead, aberrations, the Far Realms, etc., and not go by modern standards. You ignore the fact that things like racial, gender, and class equality are modern concepts. On the one hand, you want modern standards on racism, sexism, and class-abuse in the game, despite the fact that they all appear in the literature, but you don't want a modern view of aberrations, undead, the Far Reamls, etc., because those things are depicted as evil and inhuman in the literature. So, which way do you want it? Do you want to use the literature, and all the drawbacks that entails (condoned sexism, racism, and class-abuse) along with the benefits you see (undead, aberrations, Far Realms evil as standard), or not? Because if you are going to pick and choose, then we are right back where we started, with undead being evil because they are "nasty". And if we really want to go by the literature, I can take an "infidel"'s body, do pretty much whatever the hell I wanted to with it, and no one is going to say a thing. IF you read Lovecraft, and IF you read other canonical books or stories, you would understand that the concept for the Elder beings or Far Realm went beyond those definitions, even though the chaotic and uncaring nature in this realm makes them unacceptable to authorities here. My point in mentioning them was not what you answered. Lovecraft's Elders are inimical to humanity -- Cthulu regards us as chattel -- and are pretty similar to Exalted's Yozi in how they are portrayed (i.e. they are pretty evil). People are ants, and the Elders are the only beings of any real value. As for canonical examples, the Far Realms and aberrations (as per Lords of Madness) are painted as evil in a similar fashion as Cthulu is in Lovecraft's works, or, for a better example, Tharizdun. They invade, infect, convert, corrupt, and basically make things bad for humanity and other "natural" races. And you can't claim that the Far Realms are regarded as evil when the little blurb on it under the Alienist says, "...requires some basic assumptions about he cosmology of your campaign: Places far worse than Hell exist in the multiverse, and even demons have more in common with the characters than the entities that exist outside what is known," That's a pretty black-and-white statement. Or, we can use Lords of Madness, under the Half-Farspawn, "Much as fiends produce terrible mortal progeny, certain entities of the Far Realm occasionally venture to the Material Plane to procreate." It's pretty clear what D&D's stance on the Far Realms is, is objections from the authorities really can't simply be chalked upto simple weirdness.
Dominick 03-08-06, 10:39 AM	No, I'm going by history and what the game does. The cosmology of the game is clearly delinated in the CD, which is common knowledge for any character with enough Knowledge: Religion. The rest is historic. Different cultures throughout history have different standards of what consititues desecration of the dead and on whom these standards apply to , which means that making a blanket statement that creating undead as being desecration of the undead is simply incorrect. That is a strange this to think is incorrect. One of the "cultural universals" from anthopology is a rite of death. In a study of anthropology, and primitive cultures like the one our LG characters live in, is that the treatment of the body would or could influence the afterlife of the person. More importantly, the treatment of the body also influences the current condition of the tribe, weather it makes the gods angry to leave people unburied, or that they shamen would gain power by consuming the corpse. We both have said that there are a look of ways people look at death, and you seem to think your cases are a refutation of my original contention. My original point was to answer your claim that the objection to reanimation or necromancy was that it was on a whim, "nasty". It does not have to be univarsally "nasty" to all cultures. It only has to be more than a capricious reason. I have offered a few, one is that the body is used as a meterial component in many spells, that the body is the most intimate property of the former owner, and that use of a corpse is prohibited by the various cults in this culture, that is interpreted for us by our Circles and Triads, and followers of Pelor for example would execute you for creating undead for no good reason.
rutrow424 03-08-06, 01:16 PM	No, I'm going by history and what the game does. The cosmology of the game is clearly delinated in the CD, which is common knowledge for any character with enough Knowledge: Religion. The rest is historic. Different cultures throughout history have different standards of what consititues desecration of the dead and on whom these standards apply to , which means that making a blanket statement that creating undead as being desecration of the undead is simply incorrect. We have strayed far afield and I have a feeling that you're now arguing just to do so, but here we go: The fantasy world in which LG is played overwhelmingly considers the creation of undead (or defiling of the dead) to be wrong and evil, and this is based on the historic Earth model. There are cultural/religious differences in Greyhawk just as there may be in our own world (or its history) - but the cultures and religions in GH that would support undead creation are overwhelmingly evil (Iuz controlled areas, some areas of the SB). A neutral priest of a neutral diety may be able to create or command undead, but that does not mean his diety thinks its ok, or that the church hierarchy like the idea except in a pinch. More importantly, the civil authorities certainly would be against it, and the common person opposed to the concept also. They may accept your help, but certainly would rather not be aware that you used undead to do it. Obviously there is room in DnD for a society where undead were common and generally accepted (S&S's Hollowfaust supplement from a few years ago did just that) - skeletons and such doing menial tasks, with every citizen signing their corpse over to the (neutral with evil tendencies) government. At that point though you are not talking about LG. You missed my point. Racism, sexism, and class-abuses are all historically acceptable behaviors, including in literature (for an example of condoned sexism, just read The Taming of the Shrew). We don't agree with these things today, but for the medieval mind, they were norms of behavior that were perfectly acceptable and justified. For example, a woman's place in the home was considered part of the natural order, and Jews were subject to persecution for reasons varying from that they were the children of Satan to closing their eyes to the "truth". This is why your argument is falacious -- you state that we should go by the literature when it comes to undead, aberrations, the Far Realms, etc., and not go by modern standards. You ignore the fact that things like racial, gender, and class equality are modern concepts. On the one hand, you want modern standards on racism, sexism, and class-abuse in the game, despite the fact that they all appear in the literature, but you don't want a modern view of aberrations, undead, the Far Reamls, etc., because those things are depicted as evil and inhuman in the literature. I think you have missed the bigger point - you are no longer talking about LG. You yourself have pointed out previously that DnD picks and chooses what it takes from hisory and literature. The designers have taken out the things that would be "unfair" and cause in-game and out of game problems (sexism, racism, etc) from those sources and let the rest remain - having aberrations, undead, and such as evil is "normal" for a DnD culture. As you have said, and I say above, there is no reason that an individual DM or world can change some of these things. There can be blatant and accepted racism, or condoned slavery/sexism, or undead be accepted. This is not the case in the LG world we play in, or in GH and DnD in general.
Dominick 03-08-06, 06:40 PM	undead be accepted Sentients for the Liberation of Undead Everywhere. S.L.U.E. :D
Prochytes 03-09-06, 05:17 AM	Beyond the Manual of the Planes, Dragon #330 and Lords of Madness also have info on it. You might also want to have a look at the 2nd ed. module Gates of Firestorm Peak and Heart of Nightfang Spire .
Prochytes 03-09-06, 05:27 AM	Also, Xoriat in Eberron can be perceived as an aspect of the Far Realm. The Dragon article which another poster has already cited is the fundamental resource for the additional bibliography.
kjenks 03-17-06, 12:38 PM	The new LGCS is out: http://www.wizards.com/rpga/downloads/LGCS_596.zip And Wee Jas lost his Death domain. Again.
Ancillary 03-19-06, 12:51 AM	Sigh. I am unhappy, but at the same time since they had already arbitrarily taken it away from all of the dieties, I suppose consistency is not a horrible thing. They should have listed the repose domain on that chart to help new players. I have to admit, though, I had gotten my hopes up after I listed it as a typo for the rough and they didn't change it. Perhaps attention is only paid to posts that get good numbers of responses.