Search Posts
What I mean by "outsider" is someone who ISN'T a noble, but is looking to get into the "game" and may find themselves ennobled for their heroism as time goes on. Here's the beginnings of themes I've got: Young Reformer (inspired by the Campaign Trait of the same name, the Quest would be to build a network of contacts) Gutsy Halfling (Tags might be "Easily Dismissed," "Folksy Patter" and something about keeping a level head or not getting easily scared) I could possibly recycle the "Beguiler" theme from Honeylynn in the previous game, to imply they've got some knack for deceptive magic without being pigeonholed into Pathfinder's specific classes.
Thinking of a shaman who's an accountant. Wow, that brings back memories of a table I played at in college. Our DRUID was the one who handled the party loot and negotiated payment with nobles and such. It was hilarious! Sadly, he was also the sole casualty of the campaign. Sphere of Annihilation. Anyway!
Wow...three 18s in a row! XD
Not to worry, my kobold's going full-support with Cloistered Cleric, baybee! ;)
Wait, Pharasma's NOT all-knowing?! I thought she was the closest thing the Pathfinder universe had to a Supreme Being, which is why the gods HAVE to respect her judgments (unless you're Urgathoa). And that that's how and why she knows how the Universe will end and (assuming all things go according to plan) is setting up her daughter to be the Survivor to go on and midwife the new one.
But the flowing of souls extends the lifespan of the current Universe. Is that not a good thing?
This is a thread in the lore forum, so we're naturally talking about how we see necromancy in the context of the Pathfinder games, but so what? John Paizo isn't going to break anybody's doors down if we want to imagine it differently. Yeah, John Paizo isn't gonna break down my door if I try to roleplay a "hero" necromancer who temporarily summons the spirits of the unjustly killed to take their justice from those who've wronged them, but I'll still feel guilty about my character concept being out of sync with the "vibe" of the canon.
-- Whether it's inherently evil to assemble temporary facsimiles of undead (inconclusive, but Animate Dead - no unholy tag; Necrologist - no unholy tag; future Necromancer thralls - unclear) Exactly, and that's really why I started this thread in the first place: it feels like we're getting mixed messages on whether necromancers (whether the upcoming new class or various options for current casters) can work in an ostensibly heroic party, as is assumed to be Pathfinder's default, or if you basically have to all agree as a party to play as amoral antiheroes a la Blood Lords for it to be appropriate. The text relating to undeath and the cycle of souls and Pharasma seem to strongly imply that undeath and necromancy are inherently bad, corrupting body and soul even if temporary, even if alignment is no longer a factor, but the player-facing options that let you be one of those things treat it AS morally neutral. And in The Book of the Dead specifically, we're implicitly meant to read Geb's defenses of necromancy and undeath as sophistry. And that's not even getting into Eox, which Pharasma seems to have written off entirely, even in the Pathfinder days. It feels like different writers have different opinions on how much undeath/necromancy is morally acceptable. Pharasma is set up as the final, all-knowing arbiter of the universe, and undeath is specifically the thing she hates the most and exhorts her followers to eradicate as much as they can. And she's so powerful and all-knowing that the only gods who DON'T play by her rules are ones actively involved with undeath in some way, shape or form (Urgathoa, Zyphus, the Horsemen, etc.). So it feels like undeath, even in the absence of alignment, is essentially the most morally reprehensible thing a person can do in the Pathfinder universe, worse than even selling your soul to a Devil or whatnot. But in practice, that doesn't feel like the case. It feels inconsistent, even by the fantasy kitchen sink standard of Pathfinder as a whole.
Wouldn't a bear be more appropriate? It IS House Medvyed's heraldic animal after all... ;)
Secre-tengu? :P I was just trying making a joke by portmanteauing "secretary bird" and "tengu."
Secre-tengu? :P Got the basics of my character down. I plan on using Sorcerer (Draconic, natch!) as my MC Archetype in the future. Still hammering out her details but the basics is that she grew up in The Puddles district of Absalom, and was inspired by the Consulate of the Platinum Band until she was able to join as a member. Lia, are you okay with using the old-fashioned dragons as a Draconic Exemplar? I was specifically interested in using the Bronze dragon giving her bronze-ish scales with some green "patina" on the edges, which is why she's got features related to swimming and stuff.
Session Zero! Yay! If there are any themes you do not want to see in the game, please bring them up. I'm fine with basically anything. I wouldn't say I have any real "dealbreakers" in this regard, but I understand and respect that other players will and have no problem avoiding such in play. I imagine "veiling" or "fading to black" in obviously sexual situations will help make everyone more comfortable, at least in my personal experience. What is open to you? As with the previous answer, since I don't really have any themes I don't want to see I don't really have any I specifically want to see either. I might be intrigued by romance, but won't go out of my way to seek it myself. If my PC DOES click with an NPC, that's fun! If that never happens, also fun! And I feel that romantic entanglements between PCs is obviously something to be discussed OOC before commenced in game, to avoid crossing boundaries. All Paizo non-optional published options. Uncommon and Rare things need my ok, but I'm pretty liberal on allowing things like that. Nice! Everything from Team+ is available for 3PP, assuming you own the book you want an option from. I have all the Team+ books, and while there might sometimes be something I'd modify a little, they make excellent and balanced material. Again, uncommon and rare are check with me. I'll keep that in mind. I have a concept that is INSPIRED by one of the Denominations in Clerics+, though it doesn't necessarily NEED the actual rules to work. Long story short, kobold cleric who worships Apsu and Iomedae via the Syncretism Feat and specifically believes in the Wyrmknight interpretation of Iomedae. :3 I'm going to leave SF2 options off the board for now. I may introduce some of the spells as loot during the game, and Alien Core monsters may very well make an appearance. I love monster books :) Neat-o-beans!
Yeah, I've got no interest in these. Ancestral Paragon: I love this rule, personally. I was bummed they pulled it out of PF GM Core, and I am elated they brought it back in SF GM Core. This is up for a vote. If 4 or more of you want it, it's in, and if you don't, it's not. I don't mind it. If the other players want it, I'm cool with it.
As with Ancestral Paragon, I've got no strong feelings for or against it, especially given its popularity it might as well be an unofficial rule at this point. I've literally played in more PF2 games WITH Free Archetype than without. And I personally don't really have a character in mind that would DEPEND on it to work.
As much as I love Kaer Maga, I think the implication is very strong that Sutter was damning it with faint praise. Ankar-Te is effectively an undead gated community, and it's very clear that most living Kaer Magans will stay well away from it unless they themselves have an interest in necromancy or undeath. There's actually very little information as to what Ankar-Te is like on the inside, because the only characters we experience it through are alive and not local. They don't WANT to go there, but their business compels them to, and they want to finish that business and get the heck out of Ankar-Te as fast as they can. But, you CAN infer that the only reason Ankar-Te seems to be a spontaneously-formed and stable undead society is because life is cheap in Kaer Maga. The factions and gangs of the city uncaringly spend the lives of the poor and desperate against each other every single day, the Godsmouth Ossuary can't possibly get to all of them in that time, and so Ankar-Te is right there, happy to serve as corpse disposal for them all because that constant supply keeps their own citizenry from becoming violent. They can only maintain their veneer of civility through being fed by a cesspit of violence and depravity, just like Geb. Ankar-Te is just more honest about it, because the cesspit is on full display outside the district.
Alrighty! There's a few borderlandsey locations that'd fit your idea, PD: The obvious suggestion is Iobaria, right to the east of Brevoy (and the kingdom formerly known as the Stolen Lands). It's got cyclops ruins, haunted woodlands and isolated towns with weird belief systems, with a touch of a post-apocalyptic vibe thanks to the plagues that swept through the region in the past. Another would be the Whistling Plains, which borders Taldor and Galt. Technically it's part of Taldor, but they've never really had the manpower or political will to enforce that claim, so the local nomads have mostly been left to do their own thing. But with Eutropia now in power, that may be changing, with a three-way power-struggle forming between her, one of the local nomadic leaders and the Duke of the neighboring province who has an alliance with the local centaurs and is one of Eutropia's political opponents. In short, this place could be a hotbed of conflict real soon! There's also countless islands in the ruins of Old Azlant, and the southern parts of the Mwangi Expanse leading into places like Droon, the iruxi empire, and Holomog, south of Geb!
SO, I'll just take the liberty to come up with another question: What style of game do you prefer? "Classic" dungeoneering, "Magnificent Seven--ish" saving the town, "Eleven Oceans" Heists or "Epic" Slay the Dragon and Save the Kingdom extravaganzas? I'm pretty much up for anything, all things considered. Since most of my experience is in Adventure Paths, I'll enjoy whatever the AP serves up because I want to participate in the story. Left to my own devices...well...that's a good question? While I greatly enjoy the possibility of "city-building" a la Kingmaker, watching a small, scrappy town grow into a prosperous city because you're making the land safe, I have no actual experience with that style of play, and understand that it's a big ask for any potential GM. Besides, such a style of play would necessitate staying in one place for a long time, perhaps the whole campaign, and that seems antithetical to the kind of game GM-Lia wishes to run.
Alright, throwing my hat into the ring as well! 1) What draws you to this game, with all of its potential pitfalls, in particular? I've always wanted to play something set IN Golarion that specifically was NOT one of the Adventure Paths, since I've had a lot of character ideas that, while fun, just simply wouldn't fit into the narratives those stories want to tell. Plus, I feel like it gets back to Pathfinder's roots as a game about weirdos exploring scary dungeons trying to find treasure, and that's the kind of story its rules facilitate best, rather than trying to cram a traditional three-act-structured narrative into those rules (especially considering Abomination Vaults and the updated Kingmaker are among the most popular APs for 2e). And...I'm just kind of just desperate for more Pathfinder 2e play-by-post of any kind. I am JONESING here! 2) Do you feel that you will have the time and energy to come up with hooks for the group? Yes. I'm kind of used to playing characters whose goals happen to align with the plot of whatever module being played, so this will be a unique opportunity to create a character with their own goals and I do NOT plan to squander it! 3) Do you feel that you will be able to eagerly engage with others' hooks if yours is not the one that the group chooses to change at any given time? Absolutely. That's just good manners. And as I mentioned in my previous answer, I do try to play characters who play nice with others and wanna be supportive of the rest of the party. 4) What are the characteristics you think make a good PBP partner, whether DM/GM or PC? What do you do to encourage these characteristics in others? I think my greatest quality is my stick-to-it-iveness as a play-by-post player. I've been around these boards for a while and I've played through a few APs to completion, even if it's taken literal years! You have me as a player, you know you can depend on me to keep the ball rolling. 5) What one question would you ask me, or other players, to determine if they were a good fit with you? Are there any specific alternate rules from within the game itself (i.e. not 3PP) you plan on using or not using, such as Free Archetype, Ancestral Paragon, allowing Uncommon or Rare options during character creation or later on, or certain Legacy options? I plan on constructing my character as if we're just using vanilla Remastered 2e, but it'd be helpful to know where the limits are so I don't overstep my bounds. If any of those kinds of options are approved, how "zany" do you hope you might go with your character concept? I don't want to stifle anyone's creativity, obviously, and since the game IS starting in Absalom, where you can find virtually anything from across Golarion if you look long enough and hard enough, so there IS roleplaying precedent for almost any ancestry or other stuff, we've all seen those posts of parties where everyone is some really eclectic ancestry and class combo that will make the whole party stand out like a tropical-print shirt at a black-tie event, and when that happens I tend to try and dial back my own character creation choices to keep things more grounded. ======================================================================== The one question would be, "Do you think that whenever a player asks the GM how they handle a specific game rule, that the player asking the question is attempting to be a rules lawyer and trying to get the GM to use their (the player's) interpretation of the rule? No, I don't. I know if I'M asking these kinds of questions, it's because I'm genuinely unsure if I read the rules right and am seeking clarification, and I want to extend that same grace to the other players (and I count the GM as a fellow player, so that includes them).
I think it's one of the most important tools you can have, and you're one hoopy frood for asking! :P AND Absolutely. I go out of my way to make sure that when my own character gets abrasive or upset with another character, I make the fact that I am NOT upset with the player playing that other character abundantly clear. And I generally try to get along with all the other players regardless.
To be honest, my answer here is "whichever is more important to the person asking the question at that time." If someone's trying to do a cool stunt or something and I think it's outside the purview of the rules, it's not my place to argue. And if I'm making a mistake from a rules perspective, I appreciate being informed of this so I can correct it. Above all, I don't want to be disruptive to the group or start arguments. This is a bit hard, as people differ in quite a few ways. So, "Are you willing to make a character that is going to be part of the team and willing to try and stay part of the team?" Yes, without hesitation. Like I mentioned in the commentary of my own question for the GM and players, I am willing to take into account the kinds of characters the other players are making and adjust my own character to both meet the group's needs and keep the narrative a tad more grounded, even if I'm a bit more boring as a result.
Given my general temperament, I think I'd probably gravitate towards The Laborer's Bastion. Despite my username, I'm no great warrior, but I generally find honest work fulfilling and try to be nice to people. 5) What one question would you ask me, or other players, to determine if they were a good fit with you? How do you plan to help move the story forward and maintain momentum without the support of an over-arching plot? By being supportive to the other players when they've got the spotlight and playing a character who, when there's nothing else on the to-do list, at least has "go out and see who needs help" as a continual motivation. If we've solved all the problems in one place, then it's time to move on to the next place!
Absolutely!
She didn't, but the morrigna psychopomp who was assigned to the case alongside Salim certainly did, though I just sort of chalked that up to psychopomps in general having stronger emotional reactions to those kinds of affronts than Pharasma herself does. Plus, in both Salim novels (Death's Heretic and The Redemption Engine), Salim's case briefings are the kind where "Find out what the problem is" is what's outright stated and the "and then fix it" is left implied.
Though she WILL intervene to keep things in balance (presumably because interplanar wars would weaken the Cycle through the River of Souls literally becoming a battleground). The Redemption Engine SPOILERS!: That's why she has Salim Ghadafar investigate why souls she judged for Hell didn't show up, and it turns out to be an operation run by a pair of rogue angels to forcibly redeem damned souls. The book even has a long travel segment where Salim basically sees the Cycle of Souls in action, to emphasize its importance even though Salim hates Pharasma and how she uses him (along with how all the gods use all mortals, he's Rahadoumi). What those angels were doing wasn't wrong because Hell was right, but because they were so self-righteously myopic that they didn't realize the damage their scheme would cause in the long run.
The issue is that while Geb's view IS subjective, it's a response to Pharasma's view. Since the text expects you to get the vibe that Geb's full of it, you can then extrapolate that Pharasma's reasons are correct, and Pharasma is, from what I understand, infallible (as far as Pathfinder is concerned).
That's one reason why I wanted to discuss this, frankly: it feels like there's a disconnect between Pathfinder and Starfinder's opinions on undeath, Starfinder treating undead as morally neutral while Pathfinder implies they're not. While yes, the devs have stated one game's canon doesn't impact the other, I feel like this is something that could cause problems for writers of both games in the future, as they have different ideas on the fundamental metaphysics of the game world and the intended moral and ethical dynamics of their respective narratives. Spoiler: Especially in regards to whether or not Pharasma can actually be wrong about something.
Exactly, hence my mixed feelings. Generally not a fan of classes and archetypes where the lore of the game kind of soft-locks you into either being a villain or so self-righteous/deluded you don't realize you are one (a la my recent thread over in the Lost Omens Campaign Setting board about necromancers).
while a mindless skeleton can keep trucking for all eternity, and never *needs* to kill anything to sustain itself. Minor clarification, but skeletons actually DO need to "feed," replacing bones in their body that have been broken due to accident or violence, or just deteriorated over time due to the inherent entropy of void energy powering them. "You have basic undead benefits. For your undead hunger, you don't eat flesh like ghouls or drink blood like vampires, but you do collect bones you can use to help yourself mend" Book of the Dead, page 55. Presumably this is what leads mindless skeletons left to their own devices to violence: they seek more fresh bones and when they encounter living beings, they've no reservations about ripping through whatever meat is between them and that prize.
- It's environmentally bad, just on a cosmic scale rather than a local one. This is why Pharasma herself is against it. The other reasons are much more useful arguments for her church to make, because people don't even care too much about stuff that affects the planet they live on, let alone 'reality as a whole long after all life on the planet is long dead anyway'. I'm going to lump in "it's just wrong (Pharasma says so)" into here. This was the impression I got, yes, along with the fact that undead constantly need to feed on life to keep from deteriorating, and that does similar damage to the souls of their victims, especially with undead whose feeding habits produce more of their kind, such as shadows, wraiths and ghouls. From what we've seen, we can extrapolate that undeath is, at the end of the day, an unsustainable state: the undead need to feed on life will result in one of two ends: either they will overhunt in their territory and end up deteriorating into nonsentience and frailty, or their predations draw the attention of adventuring parties that will destroy them. This deterioration can only be STALLED, not overcome, and it's why intelligent undead tend to form underground societies in urban locations, to facilitate their feeding needs with people that "no one will miss" and ensure their own personal comfort. This is also the role the Church of Urgathoa fulfills: acting as a middleman to the undead in procuring food and helping people who want to be undead become that. The logical endpoint of these systems is Geb, where the undead have reached critical mass and subjugated the living, making them into a slave and livestock class. But despite Geb's rosy language, it's a situation that happened largely without him, as the Blood Lords organized under him to keep their own gravy trains going while he moped over Nex. And the general impression one gets of Geb (the nation) is that it's very invested in maintaining its status quo (the whole point of the Blood Lords AP, as has been discussed) and regards both the possibility that Nex (the wizard) is returning and the increased enthusiasm this has stirred in Geb (the wizard) and in Nex (the nation) with kind of an "ohhhhhh shit..." vibe, because they understand the house of cards their nation is, and any disruption to the supply of Quick coming in to supply the hungers of the undead, and the supply of cheap food going out that makes their neighbors tolerate them could make the whole thing come crashing down.
That's what I'm trying to say: ostensibly Pharasma's reasons for hating unlife, that you cannot invert void energy to sustain life indefinitely any more than you can use vitality energy to kill, which is why undead beings constantly need to feed on living things to keep entropy at bay, that attempting to do this yanks souls from the River of Souls and damages them, which in turn is damaging to the universe itself, these appear to be objective facts of the Universe, or else Geb wouldn't be devoting so much time and energy trying to refute them, and thus, in order to practice the kind of necromancy people typically want to do when playing a capital-N Necromancer (conjuring hordes of skeletons/zombies/ghosts to defeat their enemies, mostly), you're inherently committing a violation one way or another, and the only way you can believe you're not is if you similarly begin making excuses for yourself, or to just not care. That the devs are implicitly stating there is no moral way to use undead beings, because it inherently violates and harms the body and soul of the person you're using and there's no meaningful way anyone can consent to that. That the only ethical necromancy is that which specifically rejects the intended gameplay of a "Necromancer" class or archetype by focusing on DESTROYING undead beings and laying them to rest, in which case they're indistinguishable from your average heroic cleric or wizard.
If that's the case then why does the subtext in Book of the Dead imply so strongly that Geb's assertions of undeath being as natural as life when it's literally the energies of destruction and entropy being used for creative purposes, which is why undead have their continual need to consume and destroy, and that the living and undead can coexist when his own nation has undead dominating the living as slaves, not as equal partners, are him talking out of his ass and making excuses for himself?
After all, before Remaster we could totally have Good Summoners with undead eidolon, Good casters using Animate Dead, Good PCs with undead Familiar... Yeah, but I thought the devs' opinion on things like that was "that was a mistake" the way Asmodean paladins, Erastil's misogyny or that one thing about Zyphus were.
But don't the activities OF a necromancer earn them a bad afterlife in the first place because of the implicit violation of consent from animating a corpse or binding a spirit to do your bidding?
I'm confused, how would doing the thing she abhors more than anything else in the Universe during your life NOT impact her judgment of your soul? Pharasma's judgment supercedes all other authority in the Universe, so anyone who breaks her rules and is subject to her judgment would be punished accordingly, right? That's why your average necromancer begins looking to become undead no matter the reasons they got into necromancy in the first place, because they know Pharasma will make an example out of them if they die of old age or have an accident.
Also, Pharasma worship is banned in Geb. Too many of the "rich and powerful" are undead.Yes, I was more citing Blood Lords as an AP that is morally "dark" enough that any concerns about "ethical necromancy" are effectively moot, since PCs written up for it likely just don't care about whether or not they're desecrating the bodies and souls of the dead, or what Pharasma thinks of them, since said PCs are either undead already or plan on becoming such at the first opportunity.Like, what's the alternative if you wanna play a misunderstood goth hero with spooky dark magic being used for good ends and the Blood Lords AP isnt an option? Right, and... Blood Lords SPOILERS!: ...the few Pharasmins you meet are criminals looking to do a terrorism, and you CAN beat the crap out of them if you want, but the scenario places a lot of emphasis on the fact that you can talk just them out of it. It won't make them abandon their beliefs, they'll just live to fight another day, but for the PCs they're someone else's problem now.
Note that Summon spells in PF2 create facsimiles, so you aren't desecrating anything or anybody's remains/spirit/etc. w/ Summon Undead (vs. Animate Undead where you were, however contrived it was for such bodies to appear at your location even with low-Rank magic). Wait, summoned undead aren't real?!
Like, what's the alternative if you wanna play a misunderstood goth hero with spooky dark magic being used for good ends and the Blood Lords AP isnt an option? Yes, I was more citing Blood Lords as an AP that is morally "dark" enough that any concerns about "ethical necromancy" are effectively moot, since PCs written up for it likely just don't care about whether or not they're desecrating the bodies and souls of the dead, or what Pharasma thinks of them, since said PCs are either undead already or plan on becoming such at the first opportunity.
Exactly, and her anathema still include "create undead" and "desecrate a corpse." And I'd argue it's pretty easy to infer from the rest of her description that she'd consider summoning physical undead or conjuring a horde like the Necrologist does to be such forms of desecration. It's not even so much about Pharasma's edicts and anathema considering such a character wouldn't worship her in the first place, but her position as perhaps the most powerful deity in the Universe and the general tone the writing takes with her as merely the agent and custodian of the Cycle of Souls, indicates that the conceit that every disruption of that Cycle damages the souls involved and breaks the Universe a tiny amount, slowly but over time hastening the end of the Universe, is objective fact, not an opinion of hers that can be debated. As far as the narrative in Pathfinder is concerned, Pharasma is always right.
With the Necromancer base class on the way and the Necrologist archetype in Battlecry! (as well as the undead eidolon summoners and various necromancy-themed archetypes before them), I got to thinking about how they might function within parties and the wider setting. I think it goes without saying that the "ethical necromancer" is a popular anti-hero kind of character throughout fantasy media, making agreements with living people to gain permission to use their remains after death, returning their reanimated servants to death when they're no longer needed, using their dark powers to stop truly evil villains, etc. This is even more pronounced in Starfinder, where Eox is a prominent member of the Pact Worlds' alliance, and borai being a playable versatile heritage right in the Core Rulebook. But the vibe I get from other parts of the text, ESPECIALLY Book of the Dead, is that, in terms of authorial intent, such necromancers are kidding themselves at best. That although the concept of Alignment no longer plagues Pathfinder, the creation and use of undead beings is still wrong on a moral and metaphysical level. For example, in Geb's narration from Book of the Dead, he describes undeath as a morally neutral state of being, only opposed by Pharasma because it's a rejection of her authority, but we know creating undead beings does damage their souls and the fabric of the Universe itself, and the clear subtext is that Geb is making excuses for himself and projecting his own flaws onto Pharasma, much like he does with other prominent undead figures such as Ordellia Whilwren or Walkena, attempting to insinuate they're as bad/selfish as he is to salve his own insecurities and avoid admitting or accepting when he's wrong. The Hallowed Necromancer archetype also specifically prohibits creating undead as one of its anathema. While that's obvious given its whole purpose is using knowledge of necromancy to destroy willing undead and put unwilling ones to rest, it also means you're not allowed to, say, call upon the souls of your dead relatives to help you fight and then let them go back to their rest afterwards. The act of disturbing the dead's rest without Pharasma's explicit approval through the spells approved for speaking to the dead and resurrecting them, no matter how selfish or selfless the reasons, is an inherent violation. Even the Necrologist's technique of recording the names of battlefield dead to summon them temporarily, while likely rationalized as a way of respecting them, crosses this line. Obviously, for some players, this is a non-issue. Playing a morally dark character who either doesn't care about the state of their soul or has deluded themselves into thinking they're an exception is the point. Or heck, just playing a straight-up villain, like the antipaladin and desecrator Champion causes. But that's not for everybody, and it feels like the way the text reads in regards to this is that anyone who uses zombies and skeletons to do their fighting, even if they put them back in the graves afterward, has crossed a line, and that they may as well double down and do actual evil, especially the kind of evil that can turn you into an undead being yourself, because otherwise they'll get to the afterlife upon dying of old age (if not sooner) and Pharasma will be waiting for them with a sawed-off shotgun. Like, what's the alternative if you wanna play a misunderstood goth hero with spooky dark magic being used for good ends and the Blood Lords AP isnt an option?
|
