I hope it does. Just doesn't seem like D&D if players can't do what NPC necromancers obviously and blatantly can.
At best I would say that a player creator could spend a free action to command the creation to use its at-will attack as part of the creator's standard action and move the creature as part of the creators move action.
It's possible that necromancers will be able to create and control undead minions more easily, possibly giving them temporary hit points to make them worthwhile allies or possibly having a single undead servant to be controlled like the ranger's beasts.
We already have rituals to create helmed horrors, homonculi, and golems all of which are quite vague on how the constructs could ever be used by players. I suspect that rituals will be produced to raise undead but I doubt that they will useable as part of a dungeon crawl. Most likely they would be used as guardians of lairs and treasure.
At best I would say that a player creator could spend a free action to command the creation to use its at-will attack as part of the creator's standard action and move the creature as part of the creators move action.
It's possible that necromancers will be able to create and control undead minions more easily, possibly giving them temporary hit points to make them worthwhile allies or possibly having a single undead servant to be controlled like the ranger's beasts.
Where are those rituals?
And if I can raise these guys, why not undead and skeletons?
At some point, I think an epic-tier Wizard has the right to expect that he can have an army of undead. It's just a classic mage goal: kill the warrior, expand my spellbook, raise an army of undead, get a pet dragon... The rituals don't have to be practical, but some option should be there.
Plus, Open Grave is a DM book like the Draconomicon and likely has very few PC related things like rituals.
Where are those rituals?
And if I can raise these guys, why not undead and skeletons?
At some point, I think an epic-tier Wizard has the right to expect that he can have an army of undead. It's just a classic mage goal: kill the warrior, expand my spellbook, raise an army of undead, get a pet dragon... The rituals don't have to be practical, but some option should be there.
What level do you think such a ritual should be?
I picture it as maybe mid to late Paragon tier.
Open grave may have some undead mounts, a few guardian rituals, and maybe a undead summoning spell or two, but I wouldn't count on it, and even if it does, will likely be very limited.
Probably not at is will step on the toes of the Shadow power source from PHB 3/4/5 and rituals should have little combat value.
Plus, Open Grave is a DM book like the Draconomicon and likely has very few PC related things like rituals.
Actually, draconomicon has a bunch of rituals, new artifacts, a few new monster "templates," (i.e. ways to adjust PC races), PC uses for dragon ritual components. There's a few things of this sort in there that can be for the PCs.
That's why i thought undead rituals might show up in open grave.
eleran: What level do you think such a ritual should be?
I picture it as maybe mid to late Paragon tier.
I could see it done a few ways. You could allow it right from heroic and just work it like the Beastmaster (with the wizard casting spells instead of giving commands). Or just start at paragon level with rituals that let a wizard raise like one thing at a time, and let that increase at the epic tiers until that wizard has an army. Clearly there's a risk to giving one PC a bunch of actions, but I think you could limit that by 1: putting big costs on the rituals, and 2: just adjusting it by level so the big armies don't show up until so late that they're not as powerful as spells.
Or maybe the necromancer is a new path to PC immortality? A new epic destiny that allows building this undead army as a whole epic-tier goal.
Why not a 4th Ed of Libris Mortis or "Undeads player´s guide"? Necropolitan is option.
Vampyres from AD&D Ravenloft monster compedium is other option. It´s posibble a living humanoid with subtype of necrotouched (they are live but with strong links with undead nature), for example the dhampires (sons/daughters of vampires).
My suggestion is the mummy version of warforged, the renée (from Renatus or reborn). They are deathless humanoid (undeads who are healed by positive energy and harmed by negative energy). They don´t need eat flesh meat, but if they don´t it their appareance will be of dry dead bodies (they can eat animals or wear masks).
I sure hope not.
Any particular reason why?
Any particular reason why?
Even ignoring the fact that PCs are supposed to be heroes and shouldn't be creating undead anyway, I don't like the idea of a single character eating an hour per turn because has to manipulate a dozen or more extra characters. I was quite happy when I learned that 4e was removing all forms of sidekicks (summons, familiars, animal buddies, undead minions) and am not particularly pleased with their return.
What I hope to see is new undead fits for various levels and roles in the fights. I want new tricks that I can throw at players when they may not be challenged enough.
This is a DM book, filled with goodies that the DM can use to challenge the players and counter the power creep that is unavoidable with the increase in crunch books for players and the monthly content in D&DI.
Even ignoring the fact that PCs are supposed to be heroes and shouldn't be creating undead anyway, I don't like the idea of a single character eating an hour per turn because has to manipulate a dozen or more extra characters. I was quite happy when I learned that 4e was removing all forms of sidekicks (summons, familiars, animal buddies, undead minions) and am not particularly pleased with their return.
Why so up on eliminating player freedom, Salla?
I'd love to see some undead summoning rituals in Open Grave, but I would like this to remain strictly non-combat until the Necromancer is released as it would be a great injustice to see PCs fighting alongside zombies and such before we get the class proper.
Why so up on eliminating player freedom, Salla?
Yeah! We should let players summon all the undead they want. At level one, too. Otherwise, we will be hindering their freedom! And while I'm on the topic, why can't I start with an 18 in each stat? It's really elimintaing my freedom, because I can't play a character with stats like that. When will WotC learn that when making a game, it doesn't matter if the game system is broken, lopsided, or frustrating, it should allow everything because otherwise it is elimintaing FREEDOM!
They should NOT make a Raise Dead ritual, unless they find a way to eliminate the economy of actions problem. Otherwise, make it a function of a power, that is either like the beast masters companion, or temporary, like Flaming Sphere.
I could see a couple different methods. One be a ritual (but this be for simplistic minions, the "hold my cup" type) this I could see having the potential of being in Open Grave and have access to by anyone with Ritual Casting.
More complex raising undead I would say be left to Shadow Power and the more then likely Necromancer class. The method he could use could be perhaps one or a couple undead that work the same as Beastmaster (the couple undead would attack together). Or could be like ordinary Powers where the Power summons a undead for a short time to do a specific task. Or perhaps a combination of the two.
So you could have zombie limbs pierce the ground and grab hold of a enemy (lasting effect from previous round) while your undead brute beats on another.
Yeah! We should let players summon all the undead they want. At level one, too. Otherwise, we will be hindering their freedom! And while I'm on the topic, why can't I start with an 18 in each stat? It's really elimintaing my freedom, because I can't play a character with stats like that. When will WotC learn that when making a game, it doesn't matter if the game system is broken, lopsided, or frustrating, it should allow everything because otherwise it is elimintaing FREEDOM!
They should NOT make a Raise Dead ritual, unless they find a way to eliminate the economy of actions problem. Otherwise, make it a function of a power, that is either like the beast masters companion, or temporary, like Flaming Sphere.
Did you even read the rest of my post? Way to go, jumpy!
Why not a raise dead ritual? It would be easy to place restrictions on it so someone couldn't have 20 undead minions following them around at a given time ruining game balance. I never said to break the game, I only meant that ruling it out completely is a whole different extreme from what you are stating.
Balance, my friends, isn't as limiting as you make it out to be.
Balance, my friends, isn't as limiting as you make it out to be.
It's not about balance. It's about going out for a smoke and a sixpack while Joe Summoner takes his pets' turns.
EDIT: I do hope there's an NPC write-up for Necropolitans similar to how Bladelings got a write-up in MotP. I always wanted to play a Necropolitan.
I miss the minions like familiars, (the druid´s plant companion, from dragon magazine, was a cool idea!!!) for background. Unfortunally anytime the minions weren´t enought useful...(for example a paladin´s flying mount in a subterranean dungeon, or a ranger´s friend bear in a urban zone...troubles!!!). I hope or I expect we will have got rules for PCs allies (for example mercenaries) when a future handbook of miniatures (with rules for massive battles) was published... I trust a new D&D RTS (real time strategy) videogame will be created in a future.
When the book of miniatures (and massive battles) was published, we could play necromancer PC who lead armies of undeads..(wich will be flattened by the juggernaut contruct created by my artifice gnome PC).
Anyway, undead are connected to the Shadowfell and the Shadow power source in particular. I don't expect to see much in the way of 'classical necromancy' before whichever PHB (lets hope it's 3 and not 4) includes such. Even when we do see such options (and, given their popularity, it is a matter of when and not if), the economy of actions will be maintained, as it is for the ranger beast master.
I think we can expect something along the lines of a beastmaster style sincle undead pet for the necromancer, along with maybe some summon type spells. Stats for these pets will almost assuredly be in the powers themselves. They won't be turning monster manuals into PC inventories again.
As for mass animation and control - if we see that in 4e (and now it is if and not when), I would look for it in some sort of battlefield supplement (such as heries of battle or the minis handbook from 3.5) along with rules for leading more traditional armies, rather then alongside rules meant for more typical games.
Why so up on eliminating player freedom, Salla?
I'd love to see some undead summoning rituals in Open Grave, but I would like this to remain strictly non-combat until the Necromancer is released as it would be a great injustice to see PCs fighting alongside zombies and such before we get the class proper.
Whatever.
I don't run evil games. I don't play in evil games. In my opinion, the purpose of evil, from the story viewpoint, is to ultimately be defeated. The PCs should, ultimately, be victorious. These two statements cannot be reconciled with evil PCs.
I don't like sidekicks and summons because they take too much time to run and are a general pain in the butt. The beastmaster ranger does it all right ... you don't get any extra actions out of the deal, though you do have to keep track of moving two minis. But undead hordes? No. Pain in the butt, too much time, not appropriate for PCs in my game.
Whatever.
I don't run evil games. I don't play in evil games. In my opinion, the purpose of evil, from the story viewpoint, is to ultimately be defeated. The PCs should, ultimately, be victorious. These two statements cannot be reconciled with evil PCs.
I don't like sidekicks and summons because they take too much time to run and are a general pain in the butt. The beastmaster ranger does it all right ... you don't get any extra actions out of the deal, though you do have to keep track of moving two minis. But undead hordes? No. Pain in the butt, too much time, not appropriate for PCs in my game.
1. That's your problem/issue. Thats cool though cause you're entititled to an opinion.
2. Reconciling these statements is as you've phrased it a gross inability on your behalf. YOU can't seem to reconcile. Though really I think your original premise is wrong.
------------ Evil in D&D is just as valid as good-------------
and yay, because a great number of buyers love anti-heroes as well as heroic villians (Dr.Doom for the win). Those that do love such things should have options. The "Necromacy BooK" will sell, sell, sell... especially since it was denied from the onset.
........................
On the topic of properly executed minion control. A strong argument can be made about pets... etc... However as to how well anything approaches the correct applied usage. Your miles may vary, and for many they do.
I want my playable evil undead heroes. I wouldn't mind getting an undead henchman/pet along the way either.
+1
I might never play one along myself, but I fully support your desire for the existance of said option.
Whatever.
I don't run evil games. I don't play in evil games. In my opinion, the purpose of evil, from the story viewpoint, is to ultimately be defeated. The PCs should, ultimately, be victorious. These two statements cannot be reconciled with evil PCs.
I don't like sidekicks and summons because they take too much time to run and are a general pain in the butt. The beastmaster ranger does it all right ... you don't get any extra actions out of the deal, though you do have to keep track of moving two minis. But undead hordes? No. Pain in the butt, too much time, not appropriate for PCs in my game.
PHB already contains races and classes that are evil curious. Necromancy doesn't have to be more evil than demon spawns or making pacts with demons/the void, and a campaign doesn't have to be evil to include them. Some people like playing misunderstood characters, and I'm fine with that.
I also do not think it's even worth arguing that WotC is going to give tons of minions to a necromancer. 1 standard action per character round is the rule of 4E. That's not gonna change, so don't worry.
Whatever.
I don't run evil games. I don't play in evil games. In my opinion, the purpose of evil, from the story viewpoint, is to ultimately be defeated. The PCs should, ultimately, be victorious. These two statements cannot be reconciled with evil PCs.
I don't like sidekicks and summons because they take too much time to run and are a general pain in the butt. The beastmaster ranger does it all right ... you don't get any extra actions out of the deal, though you do have to keep track of moving two minis. But undead hordes? No. Pain in the butt, too much time, not appropriate for PCs in my game.
Okay, others have said it but, I will reiterate the point. DnD isn't a game about the ultimate struggle of good vs. evil, the fiction and adventures may be but not the game itself. DnD is a set of guidlines to create adventures that give players what they want to do within a medieval/fantasy world. Evil is something that, to see it in the realistic sense, CAN win ultimately, whether we wish to accept that or not. I mean, look at half the evil emporers, they won, they conquered, they we ultimately defeated, but some not until after their natural deaths, which I would call a win.
Okay, I'm getting off the point. They give you rules to play an evil character, therefore, evil characters are a part of the game, with that come necromancy and undead minions. I AM under the belief everyone should have the same set of 3 actions (plus 1 every now and again with action points), so I think the minions should be limited to that, and that brings the balance.
You, Salla, bring your personal dislikes and likes into what should happen, ignoring the common sense of the situation. Undead minion rituals will appear, maybe not in this book, but at least when the necromancer appears. Pets are part of the game, they will continue to be, I'm sure that one of the Primal classes will have one, and the Necromancer as well. There are even the wondrous items that grant pets for a daily item power.
Man, do I digress or what? I'm done, I think I've said enough and then some. I tend to ramble.
Sorry for the wall of text.
A Daily power at each level that grants one would allow you to summon one non-minion Undead creature of that level (assuming that the various MM and D&DI content gives you enough options to choose from). The creature would act on your initiative but independent of your actions.
An Encounter power at any level that grands them would give you one stat modifier worth of minions of appropriate level to send around the battle field. It would be Sustain minor, Your move action would allow all of them to move, your standard action would allow them to attack.
They would get damage effects based on cold, necrotic and poison, and effects include ongoing damage, weakened, slowed or immobilized. They would get some bursts, blasts and auras...
Rituals might allow you to create undead, but only for specific purposes, and they likely wouldn't last until the next extended rest.
Look at "Spirtual Weapon" on page 65 and "Guardian of Faith" on page 64 as examples from the PH.
You do not need to eat, drink or breath, however this has no actuall effect and you still need to eat, drink and breath
I just don't expect to see an undead PC race until MM2 at the earliest, or whichever PHB has the Shadow source as more likely.
Though I do think having the companion being a group of minions rather than one more powerful creature might be quite interesting. You'd be using your actions diercting them still and they'd all have to do the same thing, but a daily power raising a certain number of skeletons to fight for you for one encounter could work.
Can't wait for the necromancer, though. I would hope it has a build for weakening and debuff spells and one for having an undead minion like the beastmaster ranger has a pet, with major differences though. A ranger attacks in melee with his pet most often, while a necromancer should command and assist his minion from afar. So many of his spells would center on his minion. Some spells could give his minion an attack that deals normal damage and also weakens as it hits. A daily power could sacrifice the current minion. Example: Minion collapses and turns to dust(cannot be brought back) and the necromancer gains temporary hp. The minions sacrifice produces a weakening cloud that obscures vision which gives the necromancer a chance to find a body of a dropped enemy to rise as his new minion.
The necromancers who forego the use of a minion could have some undead qualities through powers, like touch powers that weaken, sap hp, and curse opponents. Zones could cause decay and negate regeneration and radiant power. Sickening auras that daze those who start their turns in the aura would be cool. So many possibilities. can't wait for them.
Do you rebember the symbionts and the graft (implants) from Fiend Folio 3rd Ed? I don´t want living PCs with the necromantic versión of ciberpunk. Warforgeds are enough (and the shadar-kai with their piercings...)
Symbionts and grafts would be awsome and hope they return to DnD pretty soon.
This does remind me of a hilarious story a guy i play with told me about a game he ran. The party was fairly high-level and pretty evil-curious overall. They had been battling a cult of Vecna and had been using any of the evil magic items or artifacts that they discovered, including both the eye and hand of Vecna which had ended up being grafted to 2 of the party members. Even after the power they had amassed, when they arrived in the next town the group was overjoyed to hear rumors about the fabled "Head of Vecna" relic in a nearby dungeon.
After fighting some bandits and push-over monsters the party finally recovered the mummified head from the local catacombs before taking it to the woods to perform the ritual required to attach the head, as they had done previously with the hand and eye of Vecna. 3 of the party members, not having parts of Vecna attached to them already, were arguing over just who would get their head cut off and the Head of Vecna attached (as per the other 2 artifacts). Eventually they reached an agreement and one of the PCs was beheaded so that the head could be attached. The problem was that once the other 2 cut off their ally's head, their argument over who deserved the relic started all over again causing them to bicker for another 20 minutes in-game.
They ultimatly decided to attach the head to their decapitated comrade and as they went to graft the grisly artifact....nothing happened. The player of the beheaded PC was ******. The players of the other 2 characters talked amongst themselves and decided that the real problem was that they waited too long to attach the head. They argued some more and decided that one of them would be the new recipient of the head, which would be attached in a very timely manner after his decapitation. The next PC is beheaded like is ally and the head is placed upon his lifeless body immediately. Once again, nothing.
At this point the DM is dying from laughter. The group, in their power-hungry haste, had failed to check out the sources who told them about the relic in the first place. They were being lied to the whole time and were duped by a fake artifact. lol
Im glad that guy is not my DM.
If any one wants a general idea of Wizards thought process on Summons then look at the Cleric. It has a good number of different daily summons, both attack powers and utilities. They are mostly passive it that a monster must go through or end their turn next to the Summon to take damage. They also have limited movement for the most part, and to move them the PC must forgo moving.
Look at "Spirtual Weapon" on page 65 and "Guardian of Faith" on page 64 as examples from the PH.
True, though for a more aggressive version of summoning I think the wizard is a good example. Most of a wizards conjurations could easily be reflavored as summons (example: a player could call his flaming sphere a summoned fire elemental).
Another version of summoning is used by the artificer, who creates temporary constructs that actually have hit point.
All things considered it seems very likely that whenever we get a Necromancer class it will have powers related to creating and using undead. Weather Open Grave will have any undead creation rituals is harder to say, but I would hope for something along the lines of the currently available construct creation rituals.
Where did you read that story?
Was that a story out of knights of the dinner table? One of the guys i play with told me that this was a game he ran in 2E.
Was that a story out of knights of the dinner table? One of the guys i play with told me that this was a game he ran in 2E.
I don't know about Knights of the Dinner Table, but the Head of Vecna appears in Vecna's wikipedia article, citing Mark Steuer as the DM of the campaign it occured it. A full account is listed here.
I don't know about Knights of the Dinner Table, but the Head of Vecna appears in Vecna's wikipedia article, citing Mark Steuer as the DM of the campaign it occured it. A full account is listed here.
lol. Wow, plagiarism at the DnD table.
You just cannot have undead taking full turns, where that player is now runing 12 dudes and taking forever.
What you could do is have a slate of undead commands that operate like the Wizard's cantrips (so the caster has a range of like 5 commands to give but they don't take up power slots) and give the undead orders. So you could have an atack order, a move order, etc. But these should take the place of that character's actions ala the beastmaster.
I don't think having one player make like 6 attacks in one round is an issue, just roll them all at once. Having one player move 6 figs around every turn, that's where I think things become unwieldy. Maybe do something where the figs can either move indiviidually or all at once? I think so long as the undead summoner's only playing one character a turn, and the order are relatively simple, it should be possible to pull this off.
I really would like to see feats and paragon paths that make players more akin to the undead. The grafting idea from libris mortus was pretty cool. I'd like a feat or class option that reverses that cleric's and paladin's radiant and healing powers to necrotic and damaging powers that heal undead. I guess that is more easily done with a flavor change and some tweaks....still, it's nice to have something official.
You know, this would work really well as a type of generic paragon path. You started as a human cleric (or whatever class), but got turned by a vampire... All your damage becomes necrotic, you gain the relevant immunities and vulnerabilities and your paragon powers are things like flying, level-draining, etc. Or you become a werewolf... I think that's a lot cooler than that stupid disease werewolves give now. (Those just scream "we don't feel like dealing with lyncanthropy of undead!")
I really would like to see feats and paragon paths that make players more akin to the undead. The grafting idea from libris mortus was pretty cool. I'd like a feat or class option that reverses that cleric's and paladin's radiant and healing powers to necrotic and damaging powers that heal undead. I guess that is more easily done with a flavor change and some tweaks....still, it's nice to have something official.
The grafts remind me of the psionic tattoos and psychoactive skins (from the Psionics Handbook) and the Infernal grafting from Dragon (don't remember the name of the prestige class, off-hand). I would really like to see such things return in 4e.
I was thinking about house-ruling grafts, but I'm debating whether to make them feats (requiring an infernal pact for the infernal grafts), "magic items" (similar to magical tattoos from Adventurer's Vault 2), or part of a Paragon Path.
Back on the original topic though... I would love to see Necromancers make a comeback, along with their undead minions. I also want the return of the Shadowcasters from Tome of Magic.
I would just treat "commanding the undead minions" as a minor action (or as part of a power) just like the way the beastmaster ranger does.
There will be a graft ritual to get one attached, and ill just steal existed magic item powers for properties. They will basically be attached, reflavored magic items.
Ya know, i think im just gonna stick grafts into my camapaign right now. Grafted arms will take up the arm slot, grafted hands the hand slot, grafted eyes the head slot, ect....
There will be a graft ritual to get one attached, and ill just steal existed magic item powers for properties. They will basically be attached, reflavored magic items.
Ahhh...No grafted head for the head slot?
Ahhh...No grafted head for the head slot?
Only if my friend who claimed he use the head of vecna in his campaign is playing. ;)
It's not about balance. It's about going out for a smoke and a sixpack while Joe Summoner takes his pets' turns.
Ding!
This is why you cannot have pets which don't have shared actions.
You CANNOT give one player more actions than another, even if it is balanced numerically, because it isn't balanced in game time consumed.
The good thing about 4e is that homebrewing is not as difficult as 3.5 (in terms of design and balancing.)
I created a necromancer for one of the players in my campaign, and basically raising undead is a modified version of the Figurines of Wonderous Power and the Ranger Beast Companion.
For balance, make the undead you can raise as minions. You can only raise one at a time (for starts), and it costs a healing surge. You spend actions to give it actions. Make powers that can give it more complex actions, or multiple actions.
Minions may drop like butter, but since they may only cost a healing surge (and money if you make it a ritual) it is very balanced.
I mentioned in the invoker thread, but i can imagine one way to have a necromancer command a group of undead is to treath them like a zone. Your zombies come a 3 x 3 square mob that can be moved around the same way a zone can. The player gets to have his legion without taking a bunch of extra turns.
That actually doesn't seem like a bad idea. Worst case scenario:his turn takes as long as a Wizard or Ranger's turn.
GhostStepper
I mentioned in the invoker thread, but i can imagine one way to have a necromancer command a group of undead is to treath them like a zone. Your zombies come a 3 x 3 square mob that can be moved around the same way a zone can. The player gets to have his legion without taking a bunch of extra turns.
Not bad,
I think it basically comes down would you rather raise less minions with more versatility, or summon a mob of them but with limited versatillity.
I think my way works as a good class ability, but yours would make a good paragon/epic level spell so that high level necromancer's can realistically raise mobs and armies of undead at the high levels.
Unfortunately it seems Wiz has decided to tear the Wizard class into a dozen pieces and then sell them back to you in dribs and drabs. This is my least favorite aspect of the new edition. I think a little bit more time and development should have gone into it so it would include more options. Not bizarre off the wall type options but just the basic fantasy staples like the aformentioned Necromancer.
And it seems like so many things that people cheered about being removed are slowly making their way back into the game through expensive supplemental material. Ranger animal companions? Use to be Core. Now you need Martial Power. Summon undead? Core at one time....now you need supplement to be named later. It just seems like everything about the game has been splintered into dozens of pieces so they can sell it back to you in pieces. I respect that WOTC is a business but it seems to be taken to the extreme, especially where classes are involved. I doubt if this trend will ever end, i guess it is the new way of things and i will just have to deal with it. I am not saying i don't care for the way things are, i actually quite like alot of the new features and mechanics. I just don't care for the way so many things that were integral parts of the game are being withheld and trickled down to the masses.
Unfortunately it seems Wiz has decided to tear the Wizard class into a dozen pieces and then sell them back to you in dribs and drabs. This is my least favorite aspect of the new edition. I think a little bit more time and development should have gone into it so it would include more options.
Sorry, Wizards who can do everything and no longer need the rest of the party are an outdated model that will NEVER return, and every player who was not a diehard wizard player is quite pleased about this.
The more I think about it, there will likely be raise dead rituals in Open Grave, considering manuel of the planes has some PC options.
Necromancer...strange how in core 3.0 any Wizard or Cleric could easily be styled into a "necromancer" yet in the new edition the option does not exist at all for any class. This is somewhat poor desgn in my opinion. It is such a staple of the Sword & Sorcery genre.
Unfortunately it seems Wiz has decided to tear the Wizard class into a dozen pieces and then sell them back to you in dribs and drabs. This is my least favorite aspect of the new edition. I think a little bit more time and development should have gone into it so it would include more options. Not bizarre off the wall type options but just the basic fantasy staples like the aformentioned Necromancer.
.
They will brng these things back to the wizard at some point. If they did it now, then the wizard would have had way too many powers compared to other classes. They alreadt brought back some illusion spells up to 10th lvl. They won't be able to be an all out illusionist or necromancer, but they will have some ability to do these things. That's what clues WotC have given and what I personally believe.
Unfortunately it seems Wiz has decided to tear the Wizard class into a dozen pieces and then sell them back to you in dribs and drabs. This is my least favorite aspect of the new edition. I think a little bit more time and development should have gone into it so it would include more options. Not bizarre off the wall type options but just the basic fantasy staples like the aformentioned Necromancer.
And it seems like so many things that people cheered about being removed are slowly making their way back into the game through expensive supplemental material. Ranger animal companions? Use to be Core. Now you need Martial Power. Summon undead? Core at one time....now you need supplement to be named later. It just seems like everything about the game has been splintered into dozens of pieces so they can sell it back to you in pieces. I respect that WOTC is a business but it seems to be taken to the extreme, especially where classes are involved. I doubt if this trend will ever end, i guess it is the new way of things and i will just have to deal with it. I am not saying i don't care for the way things are, i actually quite like alot of the new features and mechanics. I just don't care for the way so many things that were integral parts of the game are being withheld and trickled down to the masses.
There really are a few issues here:
1. Wizards shouldnt be able to do everything. In the last edition the wizard had a ridiculous amout of versitility. He could summon legions monsters, polymorph into an uber-tank, become immune to most effects, turn invisible, fly, kill monsters in one action, ect... all in one build. Basically, the class not only had no focus but was overpowered because of it. Not making the wizard into an energy using controller, polymorph artist, necromancer and a million other things at once is a good thing.
2. There simply isnt enough room to include all the extra options. Guess what, other classes actually get options now! Last edition the wizard, cleric and their spell casting buddies hoged a whole chapter worth of "class features" while guys like the fighter and rogue got jack (while partial spell casters got far less options overall compared to their current versions). They simply could not put all the spells from previous editions in the first PHB (even if that was a good idea) because other classes actually get love too now.
3. Things like summoning needed more time to balance. There were a lot of mechanical concepts that weren't ready in time for the PHB. In 3E a good portion of the game wasnt even playtested (they've admited as much) and many erroneous design decisions were made due to lack of feedback ("Druids' companions wont be used extensivly in combat!" "Clerics will only be played as healing batteries!"). Wotc went ahead and released all the untested material in the 3e players handbook anyway, giving us a game with tons of fun core options that were all out of wack balance-wise. Holding back options until they can be balanced is a good thing.
4. They needed room for new material in the first PHB. Just as the 3E PHB debued a couple of classes that were new to the core line-up (sorc, barb), so did the 4E PHB. The warlock was one of most popular splatbook classes in 3E, who's unlimited mechanics gave us a vague preview of where the devs wanted to go with 4E, and thus it makes sense for it to show up in the PHB. The warlord epitimizes the new system's focus on teamwork, as well as giving players a viable alternative to clerics (which has been a huge desire among the fans for years). It makes sense to see the warlord in there.
Races also got swapped out for fresh faces too, but for a different reason. RPGA and marketing data showed that gnomes and half-orcs werent as popular as other phb races, so they got swapped out for something more evocative. Too bad they didnt get rid of halfings while they were at it.
5. WotC needs income from subsequent books. What you've said is true, to a degree. The staff straight up told us that they are holding off on formerly "core" options to drive sales of later splats. This is far from he only reason we dont see things like necromancers in the first PHB, however.
Necromancer...strange how in core 3.0 any Wizard or Cleric could easily be styled into a "necromancer" yet in the new edition the option does not exist at all for any class. This is somewhat poor desgn in my opinion. It is such a staple of the Sword & Sorcery genre.
Unfortunately it seems Wiz has decided to tear the Wizard class into a dozen pieces and then sell them back to you in dribs and drabs. This is my least favorite aspect of the new edition. I think a little bit more time and development should have gone into it so it would include more options. Not bizarre off the wall type options but just the basic fantasy staples like the aformentioned Necromancer.
And it seems like so many things that people cheered about being removed are slowly making their way back into the game through expensive supplemental material. Ranger animal companions? Use to be Core. Now you need Martial Power. Summon undead? Core at one time....now you need supplement to be named later. It just seems like everything about the game has been splintered into dozens of pieces so they can sell it back to you in pieces. I respect that WOTC is a business but it seems to be taken to the extreme, especially where classes are involved. I doubt if this trend will ever end, i guess it is the new way of things and i will just have to deal with it. I am not saying i don't care for the way things are, i actually quite like alot of the new features and mechanics. I just don't care for the way so many things that were integral parts of the game are being withheld and trickled down to the masses.
Most of those types of magic in fantasy is already split up between various types of casters. Wizards in fantasy from what I've seen generally don't deal in things like necromancy, summoning, etc. Necromancy is usually the Necromancer's deal and summoning is usually the Summoner's deal. Its TSR's fault originally for not splitting up the specializations into their own classes. Its also WotCs fault for not doing anything about it until now.
Whatever.
I don't run evil games. I don't play in evil games. In my opinion, the purpose of evil, from the story viewpoint, is to ultimately be defeated. The PCs should, ultimately, be victorious. These two statements cannot be reconciled with evil PCs.
Necromancy.
Is.
Not.
Evil.
I know, I know, that's the D&D and Fantasy archtype. Necromancy is pure Evil because it seems icky. Undead can not possibly be used for good, because it's not like the Necromancer has total control over the mindless tools and could command them to do things like build houses or tend farms or protect a city/the innocent.
I don't like sidekicks and summons because they take too much time to run and are a general pain in the butt. The beastmaster ranger does it all right ... you don't get any extra actions out of the deal, though you do have to keep track of moving two minis. But undead hordes? No. Pain in the butt, too much time, not appropriate for PCs in my game.
Pent up rant from the times of 3E and the Personality-and-Morals-are-Mechanics nature of old editions aside, despite hating the idea of how unbalanced a horde-master Necromancer would be for the game, I do want to see a Necromancer class. I like Necromancers. I mean, I would even settle for a Necro-Pact Warlock (which I was concidering homebrewing) or some such.
There are many ways to make a Necromancer without resorting to horde-master. I would personaly like to see the talking-to-dead aspect of real life necromancy to be explored (Ritual?), although I know how Fantasy only focuses on the undead control. Heck, you could even whip up a Ritual for making undead helpers who can do simple chores, but can't fight. I never said that Necromancy is impossible to balance, or should not be in the game. It just needs time.
Necromancy.
Is.
Not.
Evil.
I know, I know, that's the D&D and Fantasy archtype. Necromancy is pure Evil because it seems icky. Undead can not possibly be used for good, because it's not like the Necromancer has total control over the mindless tools and could command them to do things like build houses or tend farms or protect a city/the innocent.
I know where your coming from, but the peasants are still going to be upset when you reanimate their father's corpse and dance it around like a puppet. It's silly, but people are really attached to the meatsacks that used to be their relatives.
I know where your coming from, but the peasants are still going to be upset when you reanimate their father's corpse and dance it around like a puppet. It's silly, but people are really attached to the meatsacks that used to be their relatives.
It's supposed to be an evil unto the souls of those you raise or something to that effect. I would totally raise an evil guy so that he was tormented after death, though. Then use him for good. Even if raising him is evil, some people would like the idea of MAKING the villain do ll the good work. All left open to personal interpretation
I know where your coming from, but the peasants are still going to be upset when you reanimate their father's corpse and dance it around like a puppet. It's silly, but people are really attached to the meatsacks that used to be their relatives.
NOTE!: Rant mode on. Do not be offended. My unbridaled rage does not represent my veiws when I am normal.
Cute.
This is the response I always, without fail, get when saying that Necromancy should be available to non-Evil characters. Because a strawman is the best way to shoot down someones arguments. "Reanimate their father's corpse and dance it around like a puppet"? You will note I never said "Being an ass is a Good act".
Of course it's Evil to randomly animate people! That's a no brainer! But that is not what I meant. I have always thought that it would be neat to have a society in D&D where you can donate your body to the community so it can be animated into an undead helper. But no, that's pure EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBIL! Wanting your body to have use after you pass on? Villainy!
Randomly animating for fun, to distress people, or for obviously Evil acts is an evil use of Necromancy. Then again, just because it can be used for Evil applications does not mean it is inherintly evil. I mean, a weapon can be used for Evil purposes. But I see alot of adventureuers runing around swinging weapons.
There are two examples I use for "non-Evil" reanimation. Number one is willing reanimation, as per my example. The other? Well, you know how adventurers routinely go around killing stuff and leaving the body to rot? Reanimation is just as good. You take weapons from dead enemies. Why not take their leftovers?
Reanimation is a tool. It can be used for Good or Evil, just like any tool. It's how you use it that determines if it is Evil or not, not just because one is not readily accepted by our particular society.
This is all I'll say on it, because it is derailing a bit, and as can be seen from my post, I can get rather heated over this. :P To each their own. I just hope that WotC will not place arbitrary moral restrictions to Necromancers.
NOTE!: Rant mode on. Do not be offended. My unbridaled rage does not represent my veiws when I am normal.
Cute.
This is the response I always, without fail, get when saying that Necromancy should be available to non-Evil characters. Because a strawman is the best way to shoot down someones arguments. "Reanimate their father's corpse and dance it around like a puppet"? You will note I never said "Being an ass is a Good act".
Of course it's Evil to randomly animate people! That's a no brainer! But that is not what I meant. I have always thought that it would be neat to have a society in D&D where you can donate your body to the community so it can be animated into an undead helper. But no, that's pure EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBIL! Wanting your body to have use after you pass on? Villainy!
Randomly animating for fun, to distress people, or for obviously Evil acts is an evil use of Necromancy. Then again, just because it can be used for Evil applications does not mean it is inherintly evil. I mean, a weapon can be used for Evil purposes. But I see alot of adventureuers runing around swinging weapons.
There are two examples I use for "non-Evil" reanimation. Number one is willing reanimation, as per my example. The other? Well, you know how adventurers routinely go around killing stuff and leaving the body to rot? Reanimation is just as good. You take weapons from dead enemies. Why not take their leftovers?
Reanimation is a tool. It can be used for Good or Evil, just like any tool. It's how you use it that determines if it is Evil or not, not just because one is not readily accepted by our particular society.
This is all I'll say on it, because it is derailing a bit, and as can be seen from my post, I can get rather heated over this. :P To each their own. I just hope that WotC will not place arbitrary moral restrictions to Necromancers.
.
BRAVO!!
Compelling argument!!! I concur, Sir, I concur. I would gladly give my body as a donation to your cause. ....ewwNecromancy is like if you use corpses for crah test dummies. Using humanoid corpses is a offense for the family of that dead people.
Negative energy is equivalent to D&D pollution.
A good shaman who fights with animal spirits and summon ghost of (volunteer, of course) fallen heroes would be possible.
Who would allowed the body of his/her PC´s parents were raisen to be used by a necromancer? Or your brother body, who died in the war, is used to create a new "robocop". Do you understand me?
Wait, how does me saying "if the person volunteers" translate to "people will give you bodies of people who may not have agreed"? See? This is what happens every time I say this. People always twist it to obviously Evil things just to try to make it look terrible.
And again, what if the entire society endorsed the raising of their dead, as some endorsed the eating of their dead? I would think that the family would be proud then that their loved one has left a gift that will continue to help the community.
Necromancy is like if you use corpses for crah test dummies. Using humanoid corpses is a offense for the family of that dead people.
One, it is the choice of the individual, not the family. Two, a dead body is an object. I don't see why, with permission, it can't be used like one. People donate organs to be used for Good purposes. Is that "an offense to the family of the dead person"?
Negative energy is equivalent to D&D pollution.
A common misinterprestation, perpotrated by the woeful Cleric restrictions. Negative energy is Neutral, just like Positive energy. Positive is the energy of life, Negative is the energy of death. Death is an important and natural part of the world. Just because humans fear it so much does not mean it is Evil. What if no one died? What would happen to the world?
A good shaman who fights with animal spirits and summon ghost of (volunteer, of course) fallen heroes would be possible.
Yet someone who uses object (bodies) to help others is not "possible"? That is a double standard. In both cases, we have said "volunteer" as requirement. How is one mroe Evil than the other? Because a body is more "icky" than a ghost? Really, I got very tired of the old edition penchant for making anything that is in the least unpleasant automaticly pure Evil.
The major difference is that the ghost is the creatures soul. A body is not a person, it is a hunk of flesh that used to be manipulated to the soul's will. If someone was manipulating a soul for Evil, or even for Good, without it's permission, that would be an Evil act. But using the shell of a willing spirit who ahs moved on to bigger and better things? Nope.
Again, let's not get into this. It's not particularly on topic, and I really don't feel like rebutting all the usual knee-jerk "But bodies are gross, so they are EVIL!" arguments that will come my way.
On the mechanics level...the rules make it clear that additional creatures/henchmen/helpers in combat start cutting into the player's XP totals, which (if followed) will probably prevent most egregious abuses of any 'Get an undead lackey' rituals (as well as the presumed cost of the rituals, though that would admittedly probably be a secondary issue.)
Personally, I hope that they present rituals with concrete rules, and then make it clear it's optional for GMs whether or not those are widely available. I think that will solve most of the flavor problem.
Personally, I feel that concrete rules for undead making rituals, at least for combat undead, are not needed. I understand that the logic is "Well, what if the players ask the DM how the villain made all those undead?", but you don't have concrete rules for things like monsters mating. It really seems to be a 3E mentality that everything MUST be stated, MUST be given mechanics, MUST be fully explained by the rules, or it doesn't work. I personally like the 4E way better.
On the mechanics level...the rules make it clear that additional creatures/henchmen/helpers in combat start cutting into the player's XP totals, which (if followed) will probably prevent most egregious abuses of any 'Get an undead lackey' rituals (as well as the presumed cost of the rituals, though that would admittedly probably be a secondary issue.)
Even that has problems though. Minions making it easier to defeat enemies is only a portion of the problem. ANother part is that they slow things down significantly, and give far more spotlight time to the hordemaster. As well, simply making them eat XP will slow the game down even more, as it takes even longer to gain levels. As well, it punishes the non hordekeepers for hanging out with the hordemaster, because they get less XP. In exchange for not getting to do as much.
Personally, I feel that concrete rules for undead making rituals, at least for combat undead, are not needed. I understand that the logic is "Well, what if the players ask the DM how the villain made all those undead?", but you don't have concrete rules for things like monsters mating. It really seems to be a 3E mentality that everything MUST be stated, MUST be given mechanics, MUST be fully explained by the rules, or it doesn't work. I personally like the 4E way better.
Even that has problems though. Minions making it easier to defeat enemies is only a portion of the problem. ANother part is that they slow things down significantly, and give far more spotlight time to the hordemaster. As well, simply making them eat XP will slow the game down even more, as it takes even longer to gain levels. As well, it punishes the non hordekeepers for hanging out with the hordemaster, because they get less XP. In exchange for not getting to do as much.
But it also punishes the hordemaster, and the gain (especially given the likely level limitations on created undead) will be pretty obviously minimal. I think a frank sidebar on the possible pitfalls should be in order, but I think that it's preferable that that material be in there.
There are two examples I use for "non-Evil" reanimation. Number one is willing reanimation, as per my example. The other? Well, you know how adventurers routinely go around killing stuff and leaving the body to rot? Reanimation is just as good. You take weapons from dead enemies. Why not take their leftovers?
Reanimation is a tool. It can be used for Good or Evil, just like any tool. It's how you use it that determines if it is Evil or not, not just because one is not readily accepted by our particular society.
This is all I'll say on it, because it is derailing a bit, and as can be seen from my post, I can get rather heated over this. :P To each their own. I just hope that WotC will not place arbitrary moral restrictions to Necromancers.
I agree with your first example, but I think the big question is what happens to the spirit/soul of the person who gets animated? If it is, as you say, just an animated hunk of flesh than its not really an issue. However, if the animation of someone's body prevents them from chillin' in the after life than the second example might be morally questionable.
I agree with your first example, but I think the big question is what happens to the spirit/soul of the person who gets animated? If it is, as you say, just an animated hunk of flesh than its not really an issue. However, if the animation of someone's body prevents them from chillin' in the after life than the second example might be morally questionable.
Well, in D&D terms, reanimation has never used the soul of the person, so i've never seen an issue there. If it does trap the soul, then it IS Evil. But there is no indication that it would or ever has done that.
Everyone deserves to move on to an eternal rest.
He comes from a more tribal society, and raising undead to help farming and such is a very common thing. He doesnt put other souls into hit minions, but instead uses his own blood and necrotic focus to animate bodies will most minimul semblance of life.
"Never shall you cause another child to starve, sherrif. No more will wives be brought to you on their wedding night for your perverse pleasure. Villages will no longer be razed in your retched name. I slay you now but your body will rise again. Your corpse will plow the fields of a thousand farmers. Your cold, dead hands will build a thousand houses. And when your debt has finally been repaid, your lifeless body will be torn apart by a thousand of your victims."
Well, not exactly Good, but certainly badass. lol
I just got an idea for a badass "Robin Hood" necromancer who kills corrupt villains and reanimates their bodies to do good deeds.
"Never shall you cause another child to starve, sherrif. No more will wives be brought to you on their wedding night for your perverse pleasure. Villages will no longer be razed in your retched name. I slay you now but your body will rise again. Your corpse will plow the fields of a thousand farmers. Your cold, dead hands will build a thousand houses. And when your debt has finally been repaid, your lifeless body will be torn apart by a thousand of your victims."
Well, not exactly Good, but certainly badass. lol
Well, given that he still steals from the rich and gives to the needy, he could use the parts that haven't decayed to much to give to a parapalegic or something, haha. So you steal from those rich people who are rich in limbs and give them their money and their appendages
Whatever.
I don't run evil games. I don't play in evil games. In my opinion, the purpose of evil, from the story viewpoint, is to ultimately be defeated. The PCs should, ultimately, be victorious. These two statements cannot be reconciled with evil PCs.
I don't like sidekicks and summons because they take too much time to run and are a general pain in the butt. The beastmaster ranger does it all right ... you don't get any extra actions out of the deal, though you do have to keep track of moving two minis. But undead hordes? No. Pain in the butt, too much time, not appropriate for PCs in my game.
Well, guess what. Lots of people like playing morally ambiguous to evil characters/campaigns. I played in an evil campaign before and it was actually a lot of fun- no reason to shut off an avenue to all players everywhere.
Well, given that he still steals from the rich and gives to the needy, he could use the parts that haven't decayed to much to give to a parapalegic or something, haha. So you steal from those rich people who are rich in limbs and give them their money and their appendages
So, you take from villains who are wealthy in terms of limbs and give those limbs to those who are poor...in terms of limbs? Is this is a marilith hunting campaign? lol
Now im picturing a society where wealth is measured by the number of limbs you have. It is ruled by 100-armed hecatoncieres, while commoners are lucky to have 3 or 4 limbs at best. You head up to the market to buy goods where you lay a couple of arms and a legs on the counter. lol
Of course it's Evil to randomly animate people! That's a no brainer! But that is not what I meant. I have always thought that it would be neat to have a society in D&D where you can donate your body to the community so it can be animated into an undead helper. But no, that's pure EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBIL! Wanting your body to have use after you pass on? Villainy!
There's a Sword and Sorcery setting book, named Hollow Faust, which is exactly that: a city of lawful neutral necromancers, where you sign a contract to live there: your body is yours, and is untouchable (torture is forbidden even for their gestapo) while you are alive, but once you die, it's for the state. You then become a mindless undead, who go to work or to the army, to help the community and further increase the greater good.
I agree with your first example, but I think the big question is what happens to the spirit/soul of the person who gets animated? If it is, as you say, just an animated hunk of flesh than its not really an issue. However, if the animation of someone's body prevents them from chillin' in the after life than the second example might be morally questionable.
Not much more questionable that killing them in the first place. One might wonder why kicking a door and merceslly killing every single creature there without asking a single question just becouse their skin is green is not evil, but animating their corpses later and not allowing their souls go to the hell of Grumsh to be punished for eternity is
That said, animating zombies and skeletons have nothing to do with the souls of the victims, since those are mindless and soulless undead. Depending on what flavour you give to necromancy, it's just puppetry. In the setting I mentioned before, Hollowfaust, willing undeads with mind were hunted to death. Skeletons were just a form of cheap slavery that allowed the real living citizens to pass the hardest work to them.
Hollow Faust vaguely reminds me of Karrnath in Eberron. When soldiers die there, they are reanimated and put back in the army. In fact, it is a great honor to become an undead soldier in service of the country.
Kinda, yes. Except in Hollow Faust is not only soldiers, and it's not only for military purpose, anyone that dies inside the city is reanimated into a zombie worker or skeleton soldier. Capable guys are reanimated into Dread Skeletons
NOTE!: Rant mode on. Do not be offended. My unbridaled rage does not represent my veiws when I am normal.
Cute.
This is the response I always, without fail, get when saying that Necromancy should be available to non-Evil characters. Because a strawman is the best way to shoot down someones arguments. "Reanimate their father's corpse and dance it around like a puppet"? You will note I never said "Being an ass is a Good act".
Of course it's Evil to randomly animate people! That's a no brainer! But that is not what I meant. I have always thought that it would be neat to have a society in D&D where you can donate your body to the community so it can be animated into an undead helper. But no, that's pure EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBIL! Wanting your body to have use after you pass on? Villainy!
Randomly animating for fun, to distress people, or for obviously Evil acts is an evil use of Necromancy. Then again, just because it can be used for Evil applications does not mean it is inherintly evil. I mean, a weapon can be used for Evil purposes. But I see alot of adventureuers runing around swinging weapons.
There are two examples I use for "non-Evil" reanimation. Number one is willing reanimation, as per my example. The other? Well, you know how adventurers routinely go around killing stuff and leaving the body to rot? Reanimation is just as good. You take weapons from dead enemies. Why not take their leftovers?
Reanimation is a tool. It can be used for Good or Evil, just like any tool. It's how you use it that determines if it is Evil or not, not just because one is not readily accepted by our particular society.
This is all I'll say on it, because it is derailing a bit, and as can be seen from my post, I can get rather heated over this. :P To each their own. I just hope that WotC will not place arbitrary moral restrictions to Necromancers.
I have acutally proposed a question very similar to this to my DnD group back when i was DMing. We couldn't play for a while, so I wanted to give them something to think about... I can't remember where I found it but it went something like this.
A group of adventures where walking down the road toward a village. The paladin has heard rumors of this village being plagued by undead. As they are getting closer to the village, they come across an older lady. she informs them that yes the village is crawling with undead. The paladin informs her of his noble duty to smite evil and sets forth to vanquish the evil wizard who has raised the dead.
Upon arriving in the village they do not see a village plagued by terror causing zombies. But they see zombies helping carrying boxes, mending roofs, helping out the village. The villagers do not seem afraid about any of this. When the paladin asks one of the villager what is going on, he explains that some orcs have came and killed off most of the town's men. A wizard from the forest, offered to help us out. He brought the men back as undead to help rebuild the town.
Torn, the paladin is....
I then proceeded to ask my players what should the paladin do?
In my campaign if the paladin started destroying helpful zombies left and right, he would be considered an ignorant religious fundamentalist or possilby just a bigot. If using undead is a cultural norm in a setting and in no way effects a creature's "soul", religions that teach killing undead on sight are ethnocentric, and ultimately misguided.
Of course, in many settings people want necromancy to be inherently, metaphyiscailly evil for the same reasons that many want to claim that racism against orcs or goblins is justified.
The paladin question is a complicated one. Is necromancy truly, metaphysically evil in this setting or is it just another form of magic?
It's as complicated as any other moral dilemma
Imagine it's not a necromancer, but a devil invoker. He is helping the village, and feeding them, for his own purposes, whatever they are, and bind and tie demons to do the farmwork and what not. What does the paladin does?
What if they are being helped by a group of orcs, or drow? Or maybe a Devil, which help them in gratefulness becouse they freed him?
In essence, it boils down to: do the end justify the means? Do the means justify the end? Is something wrong jut becouse it belongs to the big bag of things that we have universally said they are wrong beforehand. Isn't that prejudice? Shouldnt a paladin fight prejudice? Should him, then, commit suicide becouse he is prejudicious?
Imagine it's not a necromancer, but a devil invoker. He is helping the village, and feeding them, for his own purposes, whatever they are, and bind and tie demons to do the farmwork and what not. What does the paladin does?
Id say it depends on what his purposes are. If he is binding devils to help around the village, i say let him. If he is doing it to secretly suck souls from the villagers, then we have a problem.
What if they are being helped by a group of orcs, or drow? Or maybe a Devil, which help them in gratefulness becouse they freed him?
If these creatures are helping the villagers without having an alterior motive, then there obviously is no dillema at all. If the devil has actually done something and the paladin is supposed to punish him, well that is a different story.
In essence, it boils down to: do the end justify the means? Do the means justify the end? Is something wrong jut becouse it belongs to the big bag of things that we have universally said they are wrong beforehand.
It isnt so much an "ends justifying the means" issue as much as it is one of questioning if there is anything wrong with the means in the first place.
Isn't that prejudice? Shouldnt a paladin fight prejudice? Should him, then, commit suicide becouse he is prejudicious?
Lol. Why is he commiting suicide because of his prejudices?
Im sure you were joking but of course fighting ideals is not synonymous with literal fighting; an idea that is a very relevant in a time when religious fundmanetalists are unable to make the distinction.
Id say it depends on what his purposes are. If he is binding devils to help around the village, i say let him. If he is doing it to secretly suck souls from the villagers, then we have a problem.
That's the moral dilemma. He might be secretly sucking the soul from villagers, but since it is done secretly the paladin doesnt know. At best, he can suspect it, becouse of this prejudice. So... should he invoke the Patriot Act against the poor devil invoker? Should he wait until he see some soul sucking (maybe too late)?
If these creatures are helping the villagers without having an alterior motive, then there obviously is no dillema at all. If the devil has actually done something and the paladin is supposed to punish him, well that is a different story.
Again, a good moral dilemma. What if the devil had done, or will do, something evil? It's a devil, you know. Sooner or later, he will do. But in the meanwhile, he is helping the village. Should the paladin kill the devil, and leave the village unattended and unable to defend itself?
it isnt so much an "ends justifying the means" issue as much as it is one of questioning if there is anything wrong with the means in the first place.
There is something wrong with the means. Liberating a devil so he can save your village (and then being free) is a clear wrongness in the means. But the end goal of the villagers is not (to save their village). So... what does our fellow paladin do? Let the villagers hunger? or let the devil be free?
I'm planning a campaign, bassed on the Sins, where the players live in countries ruled by infernalists. I plan to do quite a lot of this moral dilemmas. And a lot of sin temptations, which will have an impact in the game further (the players dont know it yet). Moral dilemmas is the real reason to roleplay paladins for me.
Im sure you were joking
Yes i was joking. But more seriously, it's a pun against paladinhood. The paladins (and paladin players) often fall into the "fanatic zeal" category, and do things like killing every single orc they see, just becouse their skin is green. Imagine a Paladin that do that with drows. Now imagine a paladin that find Drizzt (without knowing he is Drizzt, that is). See the problem? Paladins (in game and real life) often are to quick to judge evil and good. They often divide the reality in "this side is right side, that side is wrong side", and sometimes even fall in the fallacy trap of "if you arent with me, you are against me".
That's the moral dilemma. He might be secretly sucking the soul from villagers, but since it is done secretly the paladin doesnt know. At best, he can suspect it, becouse of this prejudice. So... should he invoke the Patriot Act against the poor devil invoker? Should he wait until he see some soul sucking (maybe too late)?
Again, a good moral dilemma. What if the devil had done, or will do, something evil? It's a devil, you know. Sooner or later, he will do. But in the meanwhile, he is helping the village. Should the paladin kill the devil, and leave the village unattended and unable to defend itself?
It seems pretty clear cut to me at least. Its the paladin's duty to actually find out what is going on instead of killing things on sight. Unless of course the paladin is named "W". ;)
There is something wrong with the means. Liberating a devil so he can save your village (and then being free) is a clear wrongness in the means. But the end goal of the villagers is not (to save their village). So... what does our fellow paladin do? Let the villagers hunger? or let the devil be free?
There is nothing inherently wrong with releasing a devil, in itself. Having the devil do evil acts on your behave is evil, but that apparently isnt what is going on. In fact, if he is helping the village out, he may be decent guy. ;)
Yes i was joking. But more seriously, it's a pun against paladinhood. The paladins (and paladin players) often fall into the "fanatic zeal" category, and do things like killing every single orc they see, just becouse their skin is green. Imagine a Paladin that do that with drows. Now imagine a paladin that find Drizzt (without knowing he is Drizzt, that is). See the problem? Paladins (in game and real life) often are to quick to judge evil and good. They often divide the reality in "this side is right side, that side is wrong side", and sometimes even fall in the fallacy trap of "if you arent with me, you are against me".
That is pretty much a problem with humanity in general. We like to band together in groups and distinguish ourselves from people who we believe are outside of our group. This "us" and "them" mentality is the root of most of our social problems and DnD tends to be pretty big on reinforcing the "us" versus "them" concept to the nth degree. I like to challenge this paradigm when i run games myself.
Using a undead like is stealing a dead, eating a human dead body, using it to feed a army of ghouls or to hide smuggled, extracting a organ for transplant without permission or diging up a cementery to build a mansion. It´s a insult for dead people. The deceased people too deserve respect.
Using negative energy isn´t good because negative energy kills all life.
Raising undeads is oficially evil (Book of evil darkness).
Using a undead like is stealing a dead, eating a human dead body, using it to feed a army of ghouls or to hide smuggled, extracting a organ for transplant without permission or diging up a cementery to build a mansion. It´s a insult for dead people. The deceased people too deserve respect.
Using negative energy isn´t good because negative energy kills all life.
BoVD is 3e, and we've since shed Monte Cook.
Undead are a tool, in no way does creating the tool harm the person, they're already dead, their soul has left their shell to rot and waste, unless someone eats it, getting more use out of it.
A tool can be used for good or evil and mindless Undead do not go rampaging the country side. They're mindless, they stand there. It is the orders given to them that make them good or evil.
Also, I don't agree with the "negative energy is evil" stuff. Positive energy kills people too, going to the Positive Energy Plane when at full health caused you to EXPLODE. That is one VIOLENT death.
I can use negative energy to cure my undead lawful good paladin buddy, so he can go on fighting a devil, who we've proven is eating souls.
I can use positive energy to cure the devil.
Are you still saying all negative energy is evil and all positive energy is good?
Raising undeads is oficially evil (Book of evil darkness).
Only in 3e. In 1e and 2e it wasn't evil, because (A) Necromancy covered death and life, none of this "cure spells are Conjuration (Healing)" crap and (B) mindless undead weren't evil, as it should be.
Using a undead like is stealing a dead, eating a human dead body, using it to feed a army of ghouls or to hide smuggled, extracting a organ for transplant without permission or diging up a cementery to build a mansion. It´s a insult for dead people. The deceased people too deserve respect.
...except that in D&D the soul is gone and the body is just an object. Why would someone care what's happening to their body if they're partying in Celestia? They might not like the undead, but that would be because they don't like the idea of necromancy in general, not because their soul is somehow being harmed while their body is animated.
Using negative energy isn´t good because negative energy kills all life.
So does positive energy. Positive and negative energy don't have alignments, and while negative energy saps your life, positive energy makes you explode. Which one's worse now? :D
Of course it's Evil to randomly animate people! That's a no brainer! But that is not what I meant. I have always thought that it would be neat to have a society in D&D where you can donate your body to the community so it can be animated into an undead helper. But no, that's pure EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBIL! Wanting your body to have use after you pass on? Villainy!
Welll...the issue isn't just animation. Even donated bodies carry a taint to when you animate them, Necromancers can be good or evil, Necromancy is specifically evil, as you are taking forces from the Shadowfell (in DnD terms), which is by and large and EVIL demiplane and using them to cause the resting house of a person to come life and do your bidding, without concern for what they May or May Not have wanted to do, was willing to do is inherently evil.
Randomly animating for fun, to distress people, or for obviously Evil acts is an evil use of Necromancy. Then again, just because it can be used for Evil applications does not mean it is inherintly evil. I mean, a weapon can be used for Evil purposes. But I see alot of adventureuers runing around swinging weapons.
Metal never was sentient. Metal never possessed a soul, and Metal was never alive.
There are two examples I use for "non-Evil" reanimation. Number one is willing reanimation, as per my example. The other? Well, you know how adventurers routinely go around killing stuff and leaving the body to rot? Reanimation is just as good. You take weapons from dead enemies. Why not take their leftovers?
So basically, removing free will from a person is not evil? I mean you don't ask the goblin before killing him 'hey is it ok if I animate you?' the first example is a gray area of necromancy, but I hate to break it to you, animating corpses of even just plain ol' monsters to do your bidding without their permission is an Evil act.
Reanimation is a tool. It can be used for Good or Evil, just like any tool. It's how you use it that determines if it is Evil or not, not just because one is not readily accepted by our particular society.
Reanimiation is, Necromancy is not.
This is all I'll say on it, because it is derailing a bit, and as can be seen from my post, I can get rather heated over this. :P To each their own. I just hope that WotC will not place arbitrary moral restrictions to Necromancers.
I believe they will. Even 2E made it clear (both in Complete Wizard's and Complete Necromancers) that Good necromancers were far more the exception, and they DIDN'T animate.
Only in 3e. In 1e and 2e it wasn't evil, because (A) Necromancy covered death and life, none of this "cure spells are Conjuration (Healing)" crap and (B) mindless undead weren't evil, as it should be.
Complete Necromancers (2E) disagrees with you.
...except that in D&D the soul is gone and the body is just an object. Why would someone care what's happening to their body if they're partying in Celestia? They might not like the undead, but that would be because they don't like the idea of necromancy in general, not because their soul is somehow being harmed while their body is animated.
Because the body is essentially the most unique thing about a person, and for it to be animated to do ANYTHING is like when Footlocker used the Minor Threat posters without permission. Its a gross and inhumane violation of your being, despite being dead.
So does positive energy. Positive and negative energy don't have alignments, and while negative energy saps your life, positive energy makes you explode. Which one's worse now? :D
Radiant and Necrotic now, though I agree with your point save for the fact that the 4E DMG states evil clerics might use Necrotic.
Nobody said Necromancers had to do it without asking.
Imagine a good Necromancer using these corpses as a way of asking the spirits of the dead to aid the people they left behind. A city is being ransacked by orcs, and a -good- Necromancer has been tasked to help them. His powers could involve entering a plea with the spirits of the fallen, putting them to the task of saving their legacy from destruction.
I can just imagine the player handbook page now, of a monk-esque Necromancer pointing to an Ogre destroying an old house, and its angered creators given power, through the Necromancer, to act as they would have normally. The undead would not be as shambling corpses, but esteemed, ghostly versions of the people who have passed on.
I would want to play that class -so bad-.
Speaking to the dead and most other necromantic powers = not evil
animating dead bodies without tampering with the soul = not evil, but generally not liked by clerics of Pelor & the Raven Queen (or many normal people for that matter)
stealing/capturing the souls of others and using them for your own nefarious purposes = fun... but evil... and what I thought Magic of Incarnum was going to be about before it came out (the reason I was excited about the book)
I do want necromancers back (probably as a specific build for wizards that tap into "shadow" magic), but I also think Shadowcasters should have some necromantic powers. However, I don't think that the Shadow power source should only be about necromancy.
As for the earlier comment about raising someone's father and dancing it around like a puppet... sounds like fun... but other than that, I just thought it was a funny comment and not worth people freaking out about.
Complete Necromancers (2E) disagrees with you.
Fascinating. The Player's Handbook, however, does not.
Regarding cure spells:
Cure Light Wounds
(Necromancy)
Reversible
Sphere: Healing
Range: Touch Components: V, S
Duration: Permanent Casting Time: 5
Area of Effect: Creature touched Saving Throw: None
When casting this spell and laying his hand upon a creature, the priest causes 1d8
points of wound or other injury damage to the creature's body to be healed. This healing
cannot affect creatures without corporeal bodies, nor can it cure wounds of creatures not
living or of extraplanar origin.
The reverse of the spell, cause light wounds, operates in the same manner, inflicting
1d8 points of damage. If a creature is avoiding this touch, an attack roll is needed to
determine if the priest's hand strikes the opponent and causes such a wound.
Curing is permanent only insofar as the creature does not sustain further damage;
caused wounds will heal--or can be cured--just as any normal injury.
Emphasis mine.
Regarding mindless undead and alignment, every undead creature in the Monstrous Manual with no intelligence score has "Alignment: Neutral" in their entry.
Because the body is essentially the most unique thing about a person, and for it to be animated to do ANYTHING is like when Footlocker used the Minor Threat posters without permission. Its a gross and inhumane violation of your being, despite being dead.
The most unique thing? Interesting; if that's true, why can you have multiple corpses for someone lying around? The raise dead ritual in 4e and all of the resurrect-without-the-full-corpse spells in prior editions allow you to only have part of the body, and most let you raise someone whether or not the rest of their body is up and walking. You could kill someone, chop off a finger, animate the body, and raise the person from the finger--you'd have the person back, and a free undead servant. A win for everyone!
Plus, reincarnate brought you back in a new body, so obviously your body and soul are not all that interlinked.
Radiant and Necrotic now, though I agree with your point save for the fact that the 4E DMG states evil clerics might use Necrotic.
That's because 4e is vehemently opposed to anything that even hints at evil on the players' side of the screen. It leaves out evil Channel Divinity feats in the PHB, it doesn't like having evil PCs, turns traditionally good monsters more unaligned because the designers couldn't possibly see evil characters fighting them, and otherwise discourages anything like that. Necrotic energy isn't evil any more than entropy is evil, and radiant energy isn't good any more than sunlight is good.
Using negative energy isn´t good because negative energy kills all life.
In today's news, the Most Holy Order of Sacred Paladins have issued a statement declaring that water is evil because it can kill all things. They are now declaring holy war on the ocean. In the statement they mention that they expect this to be a swift victory.
In an unrelated story, the Most Holy Order of Sacred Paladins has issued a statement rescinding their declaration that Holy Avengers are evil due to them being able to kill things. They could not be reached for a comment, but it is believed this is not related to the heavy losses brought about during the anti-potato chip camapign that they recently waged.:D
Welll...the issue isn't just animation. Even donated bodies carry a taint to when you animate them, Necromancers can be good or evil, Necromancy is specifically evil, as you are taking forces from the Shadowfell (in DnD terms), which is by and large and EVIL demiplane and using them to cause the resting house of a person to come life and do your bidding, without concern for what they May or May Not have wanted to do, was willing to do is inherently evil.
The Shadowfell is not an evil demiplane. It is a dark parallel plane. There is nothing about the Shadowfell more evil than death and night. Evil might take advantage of the darkness present in night, but that doesn't make the night itself to be evil. It is simply part of nature.
So basically, removing free will from a person is not evil? I mean you don't ask the goblin before killing him 'hey is it ok if I animate you?' the first example is a gray area of necromancy, but I hate to break it to you, animating corpses of even just plain ol' monsters to do your bidding without their permission is an Evil act.
But you aren't removing free will from a person. That would require for the person's mind or soul to be present in the body which they aren't. Both of those move on, unless we are talking about incorporeal undead but that is an entirely different discussion. You aren't removing free will because that already happened when the person died. Removing free will would be charm or domination affects, and if I'm not mistaken there is at least one of those already in the PHB somewhere.
In 4e, a sentient person is composed of three metaphysical componants:
A body. Plain enough, shouldn't require explanation, but just to be clear, the body is, by itself, an object - purely physical and lacking any intrinsic spiritual qualities.
The Soul. This is the primary spiritual componant of a person, the metaphysical componant choosing the actions of the body. It is the moral componant, the goal forming and decision making aspect. It is the seat of 'higher' thoughts and functions, those beyond simple survival instincts.
The Animus. This is a secondary spiritual componant of a person. This componant is the seat of 'lower' thoughts and functions - those that relate directly to physical survival. Basic hunger and thirst, pain avoidance instincts and the like. The Animus also serves as a bridge between the 'higher' soul and the 'lower' body, taking the decisions of the soul and translating them into movements of the body.
In normal death the animus ceases to exist, the body collapses lifeless and begins to decompose, and the soul passes from the physical world to the shadowfell, where it lingers for a time before pasing beyond known existance.
The nature of an undead creature is dependant on which of these componants comprise it.
Corporeal Undead: Body alone: For these undead creatures, a sort of artificial animus is magically constructed, typically out of shadow magic, although other magical sources are possible. This results in 'mindless undead' - creatures like generic skeletons or zombies. These creatures are amoral puppets, not inherently evil or good. Likewise their construction isn't inherently evil or good, though most typical societies will frown on their construction. They may at times show whisps of memories from their life, imprints left in their physical forms, but there is nothing actually there. Being for all metaphysical purposes dead bodies that remain dead bodies, death dieties generally don't give two whits about them, although individual followers may find them offensive. Nature dieties might or might not take offense to their existance.
Corporeal Undead: Body + Animus. Some corporeal undead maintain their original animus. Memory imprints are stronger in these types of undead, and they can convincingly imitate a real sentient living thing. However, the soul of the person still isn't there. Without a soul the animus is left only to follow basic instincts of feeding and self preservation, even if they are no longer necessary. The animus also is left with a terrible emptiness because it has no soul, and this leads such creatures to attempt to consume or simply destroy living things. This is the state of Ghouls and Wights. These creatures are inherently twisted and incomplete, and while there is no real soul, and as such they are not inherently 'good' or 'evil' as such, they are inherently cruel and destructive. Worse, many of these creatures are able to create more of the same. Creating this kind of creature is evil, and destroying them is good. They are univerally opposed by dieties of life for the threat they represent to living things. They are generally opposed by dieties of death as mockeries of the natural process, but as the soul isn't maintained individual death dieties, and their followers, may show some range of responce to them.
Corporeal Undead: Body + Animus + Soul - A few rare undead maintain their original soul while sustaining their bodies after death, either with their original animus or with a magically constructed one. Liches and Vampires are the most known of these. Although vampires share many traits with the Body + Animus types (hunger, procreation), true vampires do maintain their original souls. Liches require a phylactory to live - it is possible that their animus is magically stored here. In any event, these creatures are generally evil, whether because of the processes required to become these creatures (as in the case of liches), or because of the acts required to maintain the state (as in the case of vampires). However, as they do maintain their souls, individual exceptions exist, and the acts of individuals are in the end theirs to determin.
While they aren't inherently evil, these creatures are complete subversions of the natural processes of life and death, and as such are universally reviled by both life and death dieties and their followers. However, as they are not inherently cruel, destructive, or evil, other dieties may show a range of responces to them.
Of course, most societies aren't going to make such distinctions, and as such most societies are going to bunch all undead in with the dangerous and monsters 'Body + Animus' variety, and treat any undead, and those who make them, accordingly. Individual exceptions, of course, exist.
I haven't read as much on incorporeal undead in 4e, so I'll leave it at that.
This only covers in-character issues with undead. On a game level the conservation of actions is the primary issue, and, as I've said in the past, I think a ranger-style companion (with power-based shared actions) is the way to go, with horde animation left to an optional mass-battles expansion.
In any event, necromancy as a character theme is increadibly popular, and will of course be written up for PC use in the future. If you don't like it in your campaign, ban it, but that's no reason for it not to exist at all. We can expect it in one of two places, either (most likely) whatever PHB covers the Shadow power source, or (far less likely) in a campaign setting player's guide with heavy undead themes - Ravenloft, perhaps. It almost certainly won't be in Open Grave, or any other monster or DM themed expansion.
Welll...the issue isn't just animation. Even donated bodies carry a taint to when you animate them, Necromancers can be good or evil, Necromancy is specifically evil, as you are taking forces from the Shadowfell (in DnD terms), which is by and large and EVIL demiplane and using them to cause the resting house of a person to come life and do your bidding, without concern for what they May or May Not have wanted to do, was willing to do is inherently evil.
Two things to consider, however:
1) Shadowfell is not really an evil plane. It's a dark one, but not necesarelly evil. The Raven Queen isnt evil, for example.
2) Hell actually is evil. However, the game do not ask Infernal Warlocks to be evil. They sure have a dark taint, they might be "border line", but they dont have to be evil unless the player choose to do so.
I can use negative energy to cure my undead lawful good paladin buddy, so he can go on fighting a devil, who we've proven is eating souls.
I can use positive energy to cure the devil.
Are you still saying all negative energy is evil and all positive energy is good?
Aside from the whole good/evil thing, the above examples don't work, as you are trying to use the ends to justify the means. (that's clearly wrong!
).
I always looked at undead as evil because it was against the natural order of things. Things dead should be dead, not some warped semblance of life. Raise Dead is different, in that they actually go back to being alive again - but in may stories, that is bad, too.
Aside from the whole good/evil thing, the above examples don't work, as you are trying to use the ends to justify the means. (that's clearly wrong!
.
I always looked at undead as evil because it was against the natural order of things. Things dead should be dead, not some warped semblance of life. Raise Dead is different, in that they actually go back to being alive again - but in may stories, that is bad, too.
Many undead, or at least some, have the intelligence of the creature they were in life, they just get a diet restriction. Raise Dead is the same, but you can eat all the stuff you want.
Many undead, or at least some, have the intelligence of the creature they were in life, they just get a diet restriction. Raise Dead is the same, but you can eat all the stuff you want.
heh :D
but think about *how* those undead became undead.
Liches seek power for themselves - an otherwise evil act (selfish)
Vampires are typically turned against their will.
Ghouls are cursed individuals, typically because they went cannibalistic before they died.
All unnatural, or evil, or both ;)
Aside from the whole good/evil thing, the above examples don't work, as you are trying to use the ends to justify the means. (that's clearly wrong!
The ends are Smiting Evil. The means are healing.
Uh, what?
I always looked at undead as evil because it was against the natural order of things. Things dead should be dead, not some warped semblance of life. Raise Dead is different, in that they actually go back to being alive again - but in may stories, that is bad, too.
I've always loved this. Negative energy is natural. Undead are powered by negative energy. How then can Undead be "unnatural"?
As well, I like to bring up the OOTS comic where Redcloak rants about Paladins who are immune to fear, something that is complelty unatural, yet they fight the undead because THEY are "unnatural".
I'd also like to poitn out thta this entire part of the discussion (as well as, well, pretty much EVERY point you make) is from 3E. Negative energy does not exist. Things are different now. I think your main problem is that you fail to realize this.
heh :D
but think about *how* those undead became undead.
Liches seek power for themselves - an otherwise evil act (selfish)
Vampires are typically turned against their will.
Ghouls are cursed individuals, typically because they went cannibalistic before they died.
All unnatural, or evil, or both ;)
Mhm. So, you use the examples of three sentient types of undead. Strike one. This is about mindless, animated, controlled undead. Completly different.
As well, two examples (Liches and Ghouls) are Evil because of Evil acts int heir life. Strike two. Again, we are talking mindless undead, who are incapable of Evil acts on their own, and can't draw on past Evil because they have no recolection (or ability to act on) Evil thoughts.
Lastly, you use Vampires as an example. Strike out. Turning to a Vampire is not at all the same as a mindless animated undead, and I don't even think it (inexplicably) turns you Evil anymore.
Thanks for playing.
Really, in your game, play it anyway you want. But you are seriously grasping for straws. You arn't proving that animating mindless undead is inherintly Evil. You are proving that Evil things are inherintly Evil. That is entirely different.
I hate hearing this toss about "balance" and "economy" and "pet classes". How about just having stuff that's cool, grisly and maybe a bit unpredictable? It's supposed to be a fantasy game, not a computer program.
I always looked at undead as evil because it was against the natural order of things. Things dead should be dead, not some warped semblance of life. Raise Dead is different, in that they actually go back to being alive again - but in may stories, that is bad, too.
Ah excellent point that I had been forgetting. However that argument really doesn't hold up. For starters there are naturally occuring undead, mostly in areas where the Shadowfell is very close to the material plane. So a necromancer creating a zombie is not very different from someone starting a camp fire. Both instances are someone recreating a natural occuring event in a controlled manner. Both can be used for good or for evil.
Raise dead is actually more unnatural because it completely circumvents the death that was supposed to occur and it isn't something that natural occur by chance.
I've always loved this. Negative energy is natural. Undead are powered by negative energy. How then can Undead be "unnatural"?
The same way that a sword can be unnatrual? Just because the raw materials are all natural doesn't mean that the end product is. Of course in the Core 4ed world, undead do occur naturally, but for other worlds that may not be the case.
Negative energy is harmful for life (positive energy only if it´s great amount). Negative energy in material plane is like radioactivity or fire in a forest zone.. very dangerous.
I hate hearing this toss about "balance" and "economy" and "pet classes". How about just having stuff that's cool, grisly and maybe a bit unpredictable? It's supposed to be a fantasy game, not a computer program.
QFT.
There is some mithologies where the soul of dead people can no rest if they haven´t had a funeral + burial. If the bodies of deads are used by a necromancer, religious ceremony couldn´t be possible, and the souls of that persons... could be very, very, vey angry...
Negative energy is harmful for life (positive energy only if it´s great amount). Negative energy in material plane is like radioactivity or fire in a forest zone.. very dangerous.
Yeah some mythologies. However that hardly matters since none of those mythologies exist in 4th edition.....
And you are aware that there no longer is positive energy or negative energy in 4th edition right?
.....And did you just make the argument, intentionally or otherwise, that fire is evil?
Liches seek power for themselves - an otherwise evil act (selfish)
Vampires are typically turned against their will.
Ghouls are cursed individuals, typically because they went cannibalistic before they died.
All unnatural, or evil, or both ;)
Some Liches are evil yes, but what about Baelnorn? The elves who achieve lichedom are often good. So evil liches are evil because they choose to use the evil version of the Lich ritual.
Vampires...don't have to kill people to feed on them. This is just a dietary thing. Hell, do they even REQUIRE blood anymore?
Ghouls...are a bit icky, yes. But worms do the exact same thing. They eat the flesh of the dead. Ghouls just also happen to kill people in order to get this food. Killing is evil, or at least, morally ambiguous depending on the reasons. But eating the dead is not.
I hate hearing this toss about "balance" and "economy" and "pet classes". How about just having stuff that's cool, grisly and maybe a bit unpredictable? It's supposed to be a fantasy game, not a computer program.
Like the cool, grisly, and unpredictable druid PC who ran the whole party through fear that he could easily kill any one of them.
Like the cool, grisly, and unpredictable druid PC who ran the whole party through fear that he could easily kill any one of them.
So your counter example is of something that is not cool, not grisly (grisly /= grizzly) and utterly predictable? Three strikes and you're out, dude.
I hate hearing this toss about "balance" and "economy" and "pet classes". How about just having stuff that's cool, grisly and maybe a bit unpredictable? It's supposed to be a fantasy game, not a computer program.
What part of it being a fantasy game excludes it from being balanced? I'm sorry, but some of us don't want a game that chooses "OMG LOL KEWL!" over making the game work. The former is poor design, and has the attitude of a random gamer who tried to make the "coolest, grisliest" game he could, only to fail beacuse he paid no attention to balance, and focused all his attention to adding "KEWL!" things.
I know you'll have a hard time understanding this, but a game can be both "cool" AND balanced. It just takes a bit of effort on the part of the creators. Take 4E for example. Every class is unique, with cool mechanics. Same with monsters. But at the same time, they are all more or less balanced. It isn't a crap shoot as to weather something will be a good challange or not.
Serious, I've played enough games that are complelty random and impossible to balance to know that I'd rather have meanigful challanges then the fake difficulty that goes along with a slipshod, poorly concived mechanics. They sacrifice playability in exchange for frustration.
This isn't an either/or thing like you dilude yourself into believing. You seem to read it as "Well, the old free-for-all style animate undead rules arn't balanced, so they will never have them!". The fact is that once they balance it, they will add it. Also note that villains can still do the "I have amassed an undead army!" thing. It's just that they don't put that sort of plot-ability into the hands of playrs anymore.
What part of it being a fantasy game excludes it from being balanced? I'm sorry, but some of us don't want a game that chooses "OMG LOL KEWL!" over making the game work. The former is poor design, and has the attitude of a random gamer who tried to make the "coolest, grisliest" game he could, only to fail beacuse he paid no attention to balance, and focused all his attention to adding "KEWL!" things.
Taking cool ideas over balanced ideas is one thing--and a very bad idea, at that. Refusing to consider the cool ideas in the name of balance is something else entirely. Most on the forums, when seeing a question about animating undead, or summoning, or leadership, etc. don't respond "It's not in the game because the designers haven't worked out the rules yet," they respond "It's not in the game because it's not balanced."
Economy of actions is important to preserve, yes, but automatically excluding an idea because you think it will break the economy of actions is a false dilemma fallacy--there are options between "remove summoning" and "use more actions than anyone else." As you pointed out, once it's figured out, they'll put it back; one need only look to the Invoker preview to see proof of that. Summoning is back, so obviously it's not as horribly unbalanced as most seemed to think.
Also note that villains can still do the "I have amassed an undead army!" thing. It's just that they don't put that sort of plot-ability into the hands of playrs anymore.
...which I disagree with, but that's a personal preference. With all the "Evil PCs are wrongbadfun" advice sprinkled throughout the 4e books, I can see why they'd take that out, but I personally have no problems with the PCs being the megalomaniacal necromancers every once in a while.
...which I disagree with, but that's a personal preference. With all the "Evil PCs are wrongbadfun" advice sprinkled throughout the 4e books, I can see why they'd take that out, but I personally have no problems with the PCs being the megalomaniacal necromancers every once in a while.
I really think it has at least as much to do with unresolved issues of balance than it does with trying to downplay the idea of evil PCs. I mean, there are no rules for golem creation or amassing a horde of hirelings either and both of these were possible with the core books last edition. I do think we will see a necromancer PC class at some point.
This would make them into costly, permanent (until destroyed), visible unseen servants (as the 3.5 edition spell) that could be used as a "wall" of sorts in a pinch. Limiting them to non-combat actions would also limit the time it takes for joe-necromancer to direct the drudge skeletons/zombies because you immediately have fewer options regarding what you can use them for.
For those wishing for more combat ready minions, you could have powers similar to the invoker's angel of fire which animates a corpse so long as you sustain it and direct it to perform actions. Along with summoning multiple minions directed by the same action (ex. one standard=all minions attack, one move=all minions move) who would in practice create something like a hybrid wall/AOE that would have less damage than a comparable AOE of it's level but with the advantage of being able to use it to control enemy movement (like a wall).
While this seems to break economy of actions I think the real issue on whether or not a given implementation of necromancy or summoning is balanced is based on it's damage and versatility compared to other effects of it's level. If it's balanced on those fronts (and the minions are simple enough that there's not a whole lot of decision making for the necromancer to do regarding commanding them) then I say go for it!
I really think it has at least as much to do with unresolved issues of balance than it does with trying to downplay the idea of evil PCs. I mean, there are no rules for golem creation or amassing a horde of hirelings either and both of these were possible with the core books last edition. I do think we will see a necromancer PC class at some point.
Oh, I'm sure it's a balance thing, and I'm sure we'll see a necromancer at some point...but the anti-evil PCs stance isn't encouraging. If there were evil options in the PHB and the devs were fine with evil PCs, and they said "Yeah, we need to spend time to balance it," I'd be fine, but I get the impression that any so-called evil options will be weaker than good ones (whether intentionally or subconsciously) just like when the evil classes/races were nerfed in 2e. I might just be paranoid, but there you go.
Oh, I'm sure it's a balance thing, and I'm sure we'll see a necromancer at some point...but the anti-evil PCs stance isn't encouraging. If there were evil options in the PHB and the devs were fine with evil PCs, and they said "Yeah, we need to spend time to balance it," I'd be fine, but I get the impression that any so-called evil options will be weaker than good ones (whether intentionally or subconsciously) just like when the evil classes/races were nerfed in 2e. I might just be paranoid, but there you go.
Well, the PHB does give us the made-pacts-with-devils race as well as the infernal and cthulu warlock. I dont see the necromancer option being innately more evil than this already core material.
Vampires...don't have to kill people to feed on them. This is just a dietary thing. Hell, do they even REQUIRE blood anymore?
Ah, but isn't this (and your other examples) a case of an unusual individual fighting against their evil nature? ;)
I mean, what are we going to discuss next, that Drow aren't really evil, just different? :D
The ends are Smiting Evil. The means are healing.
No, the ends were the "healing", the means were the power used to heal ;)
I think your [sic] main problem is that you fail to realize this.
No, I said: "I always looked at undead..." past tense. This is what I was thinking, and why I was thinking it ;) So, only a failure on your behalf, I am afraid.
Mhm. So, you use the examples of three sentient types of undead. Strike one. This is about mindless, animated, controlled undead. Completly different.
Go back, read my post, see who I was talking to. We were specifically discussing intelligent undead. Your bad
Thanks for playing.
Yah, your other two "super points" were also based on your original faulty notion. It would probably be best to get your facts straight before writing posts that come across as arrogant and on the verge of flaming. Oh, and get a spell-checker, too. Thanks ;)
So your counter example is of something that is not cool, not grisly (grisly /= grizzly) and utterly predictable? Three strikes and you're out, dude.
I'm just showing what sort of things happen when you throw out balance in favor of whats cool. One person who knows how to squeeze every ounce out of the system can hold hostage the characters of everyone who is just there to play the adventure and work as a team.
He wouldn't be okay with it, and the guy would do some investigation to ensure that this was done legally (not murdered, consent where needed, permits if applicable), and that there is nothing untoward being done with these skeletons and zombies. If everything was in order, then he wouldn't have much to say. Sure he'd watch the situation more closely, but as long as things remained on the up and up, his hands are tied.
Now the case of using Devils (or Demons for that matter), the Paladin would keep a very close eye on the situation. If the summoner had any ulterior motives, the paladin (or his allies) would be looking for them. And if the Devil got loose, the phrase "Terminate with extreme prejudice" would be the likely plan...
The "Complete Book of Villains" (2nd Ed) actually talked about villains of all alignments. They actually listed the intolerant paladin as an example of a LG villain. I think the real challenge that Paladins faced in previous editions was the ethical dilemma of doing the best they can to advance and exemplify their ideals...
Liches seek power for themselves - an otherwise evil act (selfish)
Make a search for forgotten realms elven liches, knowns as "baelnorn"
Vampires are typically turned against their will.
Something made to you against your will make you evil?
All unnatural, or evil, or both ;)
Eladrins are unnatural too. Or Tiefflings. And we have Tiefflings lawful good paladins, you know ;)
He wouldn't be okay with it, and the guy would do some investigation to ensure that this was done legally (not murdered, consent where needed, permits if applicable), and that there is nothing untoward being done with these skeletons and zombies. If everything was in order, then he wouldn't have much to say. Sure he'd watch the situation more closely, but as long as things remained on the up and up, his hands are tied.
Lot of them wouldnt have their hands tied. It's very easy to conceive a Paladin that, seen the undeads (or the devil) might judge "end do not justify means!!" and go into a undead-killing rampage. That's the beauty of moral dilemmas.
You gave a good example here:
The "Complete Book of Villains" (2nd Ed) actually talked about villains of all alignments. They actually listed the intolerant paladin as an example of a LG villain. I think the real challenge that Paladins faced in previous editions was the ethical dilemma of doing the best they can to advance and exemplify their ideals...
Will open grave give players powers or rituals that let them raise undead? Anyone know? Has this been revealed yet?
I hope it does. Just doesn't seem like D&D if players can't do what NPC necromancers obviously and blatantly can.
there is a sort of one coming out with it called Undead Servitor... and its for a lvl 6 character (with arcana)! Normally I play by the books but because of this book im gonna home brew up an undead PC campaign! also i have one other thing... UNDEAD GRAFTS!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE BACK!:D :D :D
elven liches, knowns as "baelnorn"
...
Eladrins are unnatural too. Or Tiefflings. And we have Tiefflings lawful good paladins, you know ;)
Exceptions, not the rule ;)
Something made to you against your will make you evil?
Its more the way they were made. ie, the act of turning is evil. Raising dead, creating dead, or setting out to make yourself undead, are all genearlly evil things.
I could see raising undead being balanced and combat-usable if they handle it in a similar way to the Ranger's Beast Companion in Martial Power.
I am actaully trialling something similar out in my 3.75E game. The players can have up to 5 minion skeletons (using 4E minion rules), and have to give up actions to use / command them. Quite 'pricey', when you remember that 3E characters can have multiple attacks, so even getting them to move means they drop from 4+ attacks (TWF) to just the one.
It's worked out reasonably well so far, turns are not getting extended a significant amount of time, and the skeletons are not hugely effective. They do enough to make them worthwhile (one group concentrated on de-mirror-imaging a mage), but they are also fragile enough not to be expecting them to turn the tide of a battle.
there is a sort of one coming out with it called Undead Servitor... and its for a lvl 6 character (with arcana)! Normally I play by the books but because of this book im gonna home brew up an undead PC campaign! also i have one other thing... UNDEAD GRAFTS!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE BACK!:D :D :D
Yeah, but the servitor can't fight, so it's not what I was looking for. And since this seems to be the whole list of new rituals, I don't think this book will allow PCs to make undead minions that don't reek of nerf and suck. Maybe in the future, but I'm starting to get that feeling that they're too scared to do it.
Even ignoring the fact that PCs are supposed to be heroes and shouldn't be creating undead anyway, I don't like the idea of a single character eating an hour per turn because has to manipulate a dozen or more extra characters. I was quite happy when I learned that 4e was removing all forms of sidekicks (summons, familiars, animal buddies, undead minions) and am not particularly pleased with their return.
I very much disagree with the bolded part. Think of it. Is it more humane to send living beings to war, or post them to guard a dangerous location for extended periods, or would it be a better option to animate the evacuated bodies of their dead, and allow what are effectively robots, constructs, to take the place of living, breathing sentients? I can easily see some cultures revering the ability to wage war with the dead, and not risk the lives of the living save where the living is necessary. Think of something akin to Egyptian culture, worshiping an Osiris-like figure. In such a culture, I can see petitioning the Osiris-like deity to send the walking dead to fight aside the living, and this being seen as an act of profound good, not evil.
Think also about ancestor-worshiping cultures. How much better is it to temporarily recruit volunteers from the ranks of the dead, bringing forth the spirits of your ancestors to wage war once more in death as they did in life, to protect the lives of their descendants? To those who are already dead, this may be seen as incredibly honorable, to fight endlessly for the sake of the living, dutifully answering the call of those able to speak with their ancestors, and gladly lending their service to any honorable cause. To those who still live, this may be seen as incredibly altruistic, worthy of respect and worship, and a fate to look forward to upon one's own death. Practice endlessly in life, perfecting techniques of combat and magic, use them where required to protect those who have not perfected such techniques, and continue onward in death in eternal service to your people, with the occasional respite and meditation, of course, and art, poetry, games, building, and so on, to maintain balance and sanity throughout eternity.
As for the mechanics...yes, I'd prefer that players not be able to control hordes of NPCs, as they could in previous editions. One powerful undead servant, as per a beast companion, is sufficient. The "hordes of undead" can easily be simulated with conjurations of various sorts. AoE terrain that can make OAs or otherwise hamper and/or damage opponents, walls, cleric-like conjurations capable of moving and physically blocking lines of movement, effect and sight and providing bonuses to allies, etc, can all simulate packs of skeletons or zombies or ghosts or spirits or whatnot. You don't need PCs to actually control literal hordes of undead to simulate a necromancer or the equivalent. Instead, I'd allow a class such as necromancer to specialize in conjurations, including (unlike the current classes) encounter power conjurations, terrain, etc.
Yeah, but the servitor can't fight, so it's not what I was looking for. And since this seems to be the whole list of new rituals, I don't think this book will allow PCs to make undead minions that don't reek of nerf and suck. Maybe in the future, but I'm starting to get that feeling that they're too scared to do it.
I would say that Open Grave isn't a good thing to base this on. If they made a combat potential undead summoning ritual it would be taking one of the most basic and concrete concepts of the Necromancer away from him.
I am willing to bet that the Necromancer will have a summonable Undead being. He will also have Powers that have instant or sustainable Powers that cause summonings to happen for certain effects. So things like; undead hands grasping out of the dirt and grabbing enemy by his legs, a wall of zombies (Diablo 3 but it is cool so would like to see it in 4e), a skeleton charge a enemy and shatter into a shower of bone-shards, etc.
Show
Taken from Wikipedia
The Iyanden Craftworld was once one of the largest and most prosperous of all the remaining Eldar craftworlds. They barely survived an attack by the Tyranid Hive Fleet Kraken, which nearly destroyed the Craftworld and killed four-fifths of its population. On the verge of total annihilation, Iyanden was saved from complete destruction by the exiled Prince Yriel, who had formerly been the High Admiral of the Iyanden fleet. Yriel and his exile pirate raiders, even though previously vowing never to return to Iyanden, could not bear to have their craftworld destroyed and launched an attack on the Tyranid fleet. Taking the final battle to the craftworld itself, Yriel used an ancient artefact spear called "The Spear of Twilight" to slay the Hive Tyrant that led the assault. In doing so, Yriel doomed himself to a slow and painful death due to the psychic artifact being bound to its user and burning their soul. For now however, the forceshield worn by Yriel staves off the consant energies of the spear. Regardless of his actions, the chances of Iyanden recovering from its losses are slim and their future looks bleak.
Distinguishing Features
Eldar of Iyanden rely much more heavily upon the spirits of the dead to defend them because of their low numbers. Iyanden makes heavy use of undead warriors known as Wraithguard and Wraithlords animated by the souls of their fallen kin. They have specialised psykers called Spiritseers who are trained in aiding the reanimated souls in battle. However, most Eldar see Spiritseers as necromancers, and even the Spiritseers themselves hate disturbing the spirits of the dead. Indeed, on the eve of the attack by Hive Fleet Kraken, Iyanden's leader Farseer Kelmon made the fateful decision to take the spirit stones from their resting places and place them into Wraithbone constructs to take to battle, knowing that they would make the difference in the craftworld's survival.[1] Since the release of the 2006 eldar Codex, all craftworld eldar armies can field Spiritseers to help guide their wraith-construct warriors, not just Iyanden[2].
The symbol of Iyanden is the Shrine of Asuryan. Asuryan is one of the most famous of the Eldar Gods. The Phoenix Lords all are some of the "children" of Asuryan, and Asurmen is the very "Hand of Asuryan". The colour of Iyanden is bright yellow accompanied by dark blue.
It should be noted that the symbol of the Shrine of Asuryan closely resembles the torii of the Shinto religion practiced in Japan.
Taken from Wikipedia
The Iyanden Craftworld was once one of the largest and most prosperous of all the remaining Eldar craftworlds. They barely survived an attack by the Tyranid Hive Fleet Kraken, which nearly destroyed the Craftworld and killed four-fifths of its population. On the verge of total annihilation, Iyanden was saved from complete destruction by the exiled Prince Yriel, who had formerly been the High Admiral of the Iyanden fleet. Yriel and his exile pirate raiders, even though previously vowing never to return to Iyanden, could not bear to have their craftworld destroyed and launched an attack on the Tyranid fleet. Taking the final battle to the craftworld itself, Yriel used an ancient artefact spear called "The Spear of Twilight" to slay the Hive Tyrant that led the assault. In doing so, Yriel doomed himself to a slow and painful death due to the psychic artifact being bound to its user and burning their soul. For now however, the forceshield worn by Yriel staves off the consant energies of the spear. Regardless of his actions, the chances of Iyanden recovering from its losses are slim and their future looks bleak.
Distinguishing Features
Eldar of Iyanden rely much more heavily upon the spirits of the dead to defend them because of their low numbers. Iyanden makes heavy use of undead warriors known as Wraithguard and Wraithlords animated by the souls of their fallen kin. They have specialised psykers called Spiritseers who are trained in aiding the reanimated souls in battle. However, most Eldar see Spiritseers as necromancers, and even the Spiritseers themselves hate disturbing the spirits of the dead. Indeed, on the eve of the attack by Hive Fleet Kraken, Iyanden's leader Farseer Kelmon made the fateful decision to take the spirit stones from their resting places and place them into Wraithbone constructs to take to battle, knowing that they would make the difference in the craftworld's survival.[1] Since the release of the 2006 eldar Codex, all craftworld eldar armies can field Spiritseers to help guide their wraith-construct warriors, not just Iyanden[2].
The symbol of Iyanden is the Shrine of Asuryan. Asuryan is one of the most famous of the Eldar Gods. The Phoenix Lords all are some of the "children" of Asuryan, and Asurmen is the very "Hand of Asuryan". The colour of Iyanden is bright yellow accompanied by dark blue.
It should be noted that the symbol of the Shrine of Asuryan closely resembles the torii of the Shinto religion practiced in Japan.