Zoken44's page

That wasn't explicit permission, so I'm not going to bring up anything.

I see concept of "Necromancy is always evil" as limiting on story telling. I've seen story telling where it is not considered evil at all, maybe creepy, but not evil or cause of social exile.

you bring up the need for them to be a cannon-fodder enemy that can just be slaughtered en-masse because the game is focused around combat... as if a living enemy can't have evil ideologies or cruel hearts that justifies their dispatching. and you use the dungeon crawl concept to justify "you can't leave them alive behind you". Dungeons are not the main form adventures take in Pathfinder.

and from an even more meta perspective, I find black and white story telling as not just reductive and lazy, but actively harmful as it encourages us to think of issues in the wider world like that.

1: SEO "Not engaging" is not replying at all. it isn't talking to me like a child, and threatening to withhold their engagement unless I comply to their standard of discourse.

2: Unicore. removing moral and narrative complexity is the easy path. Further, I'm going to double down on a point you made while contradicting you: with Nazi's there are no exceptions. Always evil.

3: I am actually going to be very careful here. You've by bringing up your ethnicity/religion there are comparisons I could make. HOWEVER, that can be a VERY sensitive subject, and I don't want to go plodding around like a jerk. So I'm legitimately asking if you're comfortable with references to that, and a "No" is entirely valid and won't be challenged.

or passion versus detachment, (as per me). as I person I find your summation condescending. and don't think either of you are any less aggressive than me. Unicore did not "ask questions" they stated the opinions, though occasionally stating them as though they were facts.

Just because a thing is not real, does not mean it does not have real-world counterparts, given context in the narrative. Klingons in modern Star Trek usually represent hyper-masculinity, even toxic masculinity, BUT in the original series, and in the films through the 80's they were very much an analogy for Russia.

Necromancy can mean a lot of things, depending on how you tell the story. there are many things that were once thought as horrific evil, or poisons, that later we found if used properly could be harnessed to do good. and that's from the metatextual standpoint.

please explain how it is more acceptable to say all necromancy and undead are evil, than it is to say all fiends are evil? I get wanting to avoid discussing fiends based on wanting to avoid topics that could bring up Religious Trauma, that is an excellent point, but that somehow justifying treating all Undead and necromancers as Default Evil does not scan.

Zoken44, I am happy to keep discussing the ethics of necromancy in PF2 and Golarion but I am not looking to get you or myself worked up in a snarky back and forth. I expressed my thoughts, you have responded in a tone I don’t think it will be productive for me to match or respond to. If you want to discuss any of what I said, I will be happy to reengage with any sincere question or comment that is geared towards discussion.

If you can't argue my points, police my tone?

Unicore

1: your first point is extremely superficial. We have to make undead= evil from a meta stand point to have a fodder enemy to murder-hobo on so players don't feel bad, because you can't have combat without combat... like this system doesn't have hazards, skill challenges, and other non-violent forms of "combat" to resolve situations.

2: So, we can't have demons and devils be universally evil because of religious trauma (sincerely, I like the reason, but not the conclusion) but undead can definitely be universally email.

3: Unicorns are not real, Owlbears are not real, leshies are not real, most things in this game are not real. This is fiction. it has a real world counterpart based on the context it is put in by your narrative.

4: So it's fine to play as "One of the good ones" so long as I stick to one of the story lines you have already imagined, because any other story line would be "cliche". Further the "seductive draw of power" and "that is just always evil" have also been stories told by oppressors and abusers to justify their cruelty and aggression.
are you going to call all wizards who cast Fireball (or whatever the remaster version is) evil because that is inherently a destructive and aggressive spell?

5.
so your fifth point is that necromancy is bad because it takes... roleplaying... in your table top ROLEPLAYING game?

that last bit... none of those are necessarily part of the class fantasy of a necromancer. You are someone who studied the powers of life and death from an academic perspective and have managed to gain some control over them.

I would imagine it would be more popular in Rahadoum as it is distinct and separte from the divine magic, and in fact accomplishes thigns normally impossible without divine magic with only occult study and skill. accomplishing feats normally reserved for the divinely appointed, I imagine, would be something Rahadoum would brag about.

"Oh, you must suplicate yourself to a god to combat undead, and heal, we can do the same thing, but all we had to do was actual work and study, not have some divine master pulling our chain"

Interesting concept: Necromancers become very popular in Rahadoum for two reasons:
1: they are a big middle finger to a specific god

2: They can actually fulfill the role clerics take in communities and adventuring parties, destroying undead and healing.

So, a Puppeteer spirit Necromancer from Rahadoum that focuses on Healing and undead destruction.

"What's the point of this type of magic if it isn't inherently bad" really?

and all actions can have unwanted repercussions. a good writer/GM could create interesting moral quandaries for any edicts and anathema.

and I will always remind, this is a discussion of the ethics of necromancy. Remember, this setting acknowledges that even the "good" gods are not perfect bastions of morality, Hence Rahadoum exists.

actually, now there is an idea. a Rahadoum Necromancer, who rejects the god's condemnation of necromancy. and not only willingly manipulates the undead, but also uses it as a non-divine way to combat them.

Oh... that is an interesting plot line. as Necromancy becomes a more normalized thing, a story about a rogue sect of Pharasman Priests contracting Red Mantis Assassins to take out Holy aligned and neutral necromancers, because they can't be seen doing it themselves. They are known to be militantly against Unholy necromancers, and destructive/antisocial necromancers. So the party, with a good and/or Holy necromancer must uncover the conspiracy, and only when it becomes pubic knowledge, does Pharasma forsake them, thus raising questions about Pharasma's bias.

don't see the need as in "We don't need Guilt Free Necromancy because Guilty Necromancy isn't a thing, Necromancy is neutral"

or "I'm not saying your character is a bad person, so don't whine that I decided to play this class I'm going to make every NPC in this fantasy game we play for escapism react to you as if you are a monster"

Blue_frog that is an EXCELLENT point about them failing stealth checks. So if you're trying to sneakily avoid traps, thralls are a bad idea, without completely removing their utility in things like this.

Okay, expanding my original idea for a Gebbite human quick Spirit Puppeteer necromancer.

He views necromancy from a completely academic view point. and while he's not completely heartless, he does treat them as disposable as they are, to the point where he has them walk down halls and open doors in dungeons. He calls all his Thrall's "Buster" as they are made to get busted up.

I can say this, as a GM I would not allow the vampiric spell Pre-buff you described. Your thrall is barely held together through power you put into them. No you cannot get extra temp HP from attacking them.

The rest, I think you're 100% right about, or at least it makes enough sense right now I would allow it. you have a little crash-test dummy with you at all times. (bonus points if you call him "Buster")

They didn't put AoN under any threat of legal action. They actively encouraged AoN to keep posting all the rules under other existing legal framework. Neither AoN's post, nor Paizo's implied any sort of legal action or antagonizing of AoN by Paizo. All AoN has to do is take down artwork. It will be inconvenient not having early access to the information anymore, but they aren't threatening AoN with anything.

My read on all this is that Paizo was forced to do this for financial reasons (in the words of one of the people laid off: "Hi, 12 [people] no longer have jobs!") and while they were trying to work with AoN to figure out if they can get them on some special marketing access, AoN, not realizing how big a splash it would cause, made their announcement.

This is nothing like the OGL debacle. that is a ludicrous comparison. that comparison just tried to star in a fast and furious movie. that's how ludicrous it was.

and No, in a licensing agreement, I would expect them to first formally announce the ending of the licensing agreement, and then negotiate a possible marketing agreement. This isn't like they could go and sit down and talk with the folks at AoN. this is a corporation's PR, Legal, Licensing, and advertising departments, communicating with a volunteer group who do advertising for them.

Again, I have things I could criticize Paizo on here, but I get why they are ending the agreement. It sucks, but it makes sense giving the state they are in. and you want to know what makes me say this kind of thing. Over on Blusky one of the people I've seen defending Paizo, saying their financial position is that bad... IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THEY JUST LAID OFF. If THAT person say it makes sense for Paizo to act this way, I'm gonna listen.

Again, I have made criticisms of Paizo here that I stand behind, but I think this... well, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

People keep quoting my previous post and deliberately excising the rest of that first paragraph, so I will reiterate: I fail to see how stating truthfully that AoN jumped the gun on announcing this situation is "throwing them under the bus." Things can just be accurate. I don't think Paizo was unjustified in trusting one of their partners to hold off on announcing a major change until both parties had actually gotten their ducks in a row, volunteer status be damned.

Paizo had less than two work-hours to come up with a statement to counter half a day of conspiracy-minded spiraling. I have not been given any reason to outright mistrust their claims at this time, even if I don't perfectly understand the mechanics of legal fees or IP protection. I feel that this company has earned more good will over the years than people are giving them.

TBC I completely believe and don't at all doubt Paizo's statement. I say it's throwing AoN under the bus because of that comment at the end, acting like AoN were unreasonable to post their side of things.

AoN is a group of volunteers who operate on donations. They get grace. I do believe they may have made their statement a bit early due to naivete about how business communication works.

But I also believe that Paizo making that statement about it the way they did was wrong. and they have a staff for PR and writing. They know better than to be petty. I like Paizo, but they're a corporation, and Corp's are not to be given unquestioned trust.

you're forgetting something

Paizo: big corporation with tons of people, including lawyers and a PR department

AoN: A group of people who volunteer their time and resources to put the site together, and don't, necessarily, have training in business communication.

My point, I think AoN may have dropped the news early, not realizing how big a splash it was going to make, and I can't blame them.

Paizo took it's time drafting a corporate response that came out a bit petty, possibly unintentionally, but they have professional writers and have released public statements in the past that haven't come off this petty, even with talking about diamond.

I hold Paizo to a higher standard than AoN.

Holy is pretty much the epitome of Good on the cosmic scale, which, if a mortal, you have to actively opt in to get.

Same for Unholy and Evil.

Haven't read the class yet. Looking forward to street date to discover all its goodness on AoN.

Holy does not equal good, it equals aligned with the upper planes. correspondingly Unholy does not equal Evil, it equals aligned with the lower planes. Do holy things tend to more correspond with what most would consider good, yes. Do Unholy things tend to correspond more with things most would consider evil, Yes. However Holy creatures can commit acts most would consider evil, without losing their holy status, and unholy creatures could commit acts most would consider good. That was part of the point of decoupling the alignment system, and moving to edicts and anathemas.

Otherwise, y'all have argued that Pharasma has worked to maintain the river of souls, which most would consider "good". That, by your definition would make her "holy", but she is not holy, because Holy is not the same as Good was.

True, much as I intended it to be.

For me, and when I am the GM, it is not a conversation, Necromancy is evil in the world of Golarion. I would have to look at the new Necromancer class to determine if there is sufficient lore reasons why I wouldn't consider it that way.

Though, alignment is (mostly) gone and if everyone at the table is okay with that kind of character being present in the group, I won't stop them. I would likely have NPCs make comments about the necromancer. And The world at large wouldn't find positive redeeming points about necromancy, and if a character believed there were positive redeeming things about it they would essentially be deluding themselves into believing so (the way some believe that Razmir is an actual god). To me all of that is fine.

again, at your table that's all well and good, assuming you explain that to your player before you start punishing them for choosing a PFS legal class.

However, this is a conversation about Ethics in necromancy, which goes beyond your table. Are you trying to bow out of the conversation? like someone announcing they're leaving social media? or do you think this is just the only acceptable position in general?

Getting them the PDF early was part of the original agreement. To end one part of the agreement, the whole agreement must be ended. That's business. It sucks, but they laid out a pretty clear reason why they have to do it. given the financial situation they're in, They have to cut costs where they can. It sucks, and their communication on this should have been better, but I understand that there isn't any malice with this, or greed, or even Gross incompetence. just a situation where they have to take the least bad option.

The part that annoys me about the statement was the bit at the end where james points out that AoN broke the news "before discussions" about further marketing options were ended, clearly criticizing AoN's choice to immediately disclose their situation. as an entirely Volunteer run, donation based org, AoN gets far more grace in my opinion when it comes to timing releasing information. and I don't like the implied criticism.

It was overly snippy and tried to claim some non-existent intellectual/moral high ground over your preferred playstyle.

What I will say is that in a conversation regarding Ethics of necromancy, while your playstyle is valid, that statement about it is a conversation terminator.

Deleted pervious post for being melodramatic and overly aggressive.

Geb claims that Pharasma's hatred of undeath is a personal preference because Urgathoa was the first person to defy her, and the reasoning she provides (creating undead damages souls, and through it damages the overall health of the Universe) is groundless.

But since Pharasma's judgments of souls are supposed to be 100% accurate and unbiased, why would her statements about how the Universe works and why undeath is inherently harmful be any less objective? By contrast, Geb is shown throughout the work to ignore information that proves his views and assertions wrong (such as that benevolent ghosts like Ordellia Whilwren must have SOME selfish motivation, because that would imply they're better than him and he's an arrogant jerk whose self-image depends on seeing himself as an enlightened ghost who's risen above the obsessions of lesser ghosts and lacks the self-awareness to realize as he's writing that his obsession with Nex is showing, or that Walkena is naive for actually caring about his living subjects in his own twisted way, while Geb purports his own kingdom as a model of undead and living coexisting and deliberately ignores how the Quick are clear second-class citizens.). So given that context, it stands to reason that Geb is wrong about why Pharasma's motivations and thus the nature of reality itself.

The whole reason I started this thread in the first place was, back in the initial discussion about Necromancer as a class, I wondered if, given undeath seemingly DOES harm the fabric of reality even if the undead ARE raised "ethically" or only temporarily, you really couldn't BE a heroic "classic necromancer" with a swarm of undead minions to do good things because you're still hastening the Universe's inevitable demise. Despite Pharasma's neutrality, undead minions are pretty much ONLY used by Evil characters who don't care about the overall health OF the Universe. Holy deities generally obey Pharasma's laws against undeath even if she isn't benevolent herself.

First: it does NOT logically follow that because Geb is an Arrogant narcissist (I don't argue, he is) that Everything he states MUST be incorrect and wrong. He is very likely highly biased in his interpretations of Pharasmas actions and motivations, and definitely could be misrepresenting some things, but it is not right to say that because he says it, and he's an arrogant prat he must therefore be wrong, proving Pharasma right.

FURTHER, you state that you cannot be a good person using undead in that way because it ultimately damages the health of the universe... well, then you cannot be good and heroic and live in America because, currently, everything we do requires fossil fuels that are actively harming the world. Unless morality is more complex than "this thing is bad, if you engage with it in any way shape or form you are therefore bad"

The confusing thing to me is the lack of commentary from Paizo regarding this. I can understand this move being downstream of the diamond fiasco, and their layoffs. it's not like they're getting fully hostile to AoN, but but the silence from a company that is usually very communicative to it's community is disappointing.

Don't forget that you can insta-flank as a reaper. which essentially bumps your proficiency up a level. Not to mention how many ways this class has to inflict de-buffs liked sickened and frightened.

That makes sense, and I understand that this person is someone you consider a friend. please understand that, while some of us may come off as short and brusque, we are voicing out of concern for you.

I hope your GM takes the criticism you need to give him, and grows. His behavior was not acceptable toward anyone, let alone a friend. You, and your other friends at the table don't deserve to be treated like that.

And there is no reason to walk away from the table (assuming it's not literally his table). You can ask him to leave the group IF he's unreasonable. Consider it may be time to step up and be the GM your group deserves.

Would it be broken to house rule the ability to add occult spells to your dirge?

basically I'm wondering if there is a reason they can't add spells to their dirge.

And, given how frequently they do this, could you house rule a feat where they can learn spells from the Arcane and Divine lists that deal void damage, or affect undead?

I have a rebuttal for that, however it's technically off topic, and possibly pedantic. are you interested in that at all or should I skip it? Trying not to dig in my heals when it does matter.

once more conflating "good" and "Evil" with "Holy" and "Unholy"

but overall you're point stands firm, as even within this new class, to learn the "Create undead" ritual (lv 2 feat Undead Creator) you CANNOT be holy, and it is tagged with unholy.

The Lv 6 Conjurer of Corpses feat has no such requirement or tag, only that you are a puppeteer, and it not only teaches you Summon Undead, but gives you a max rank slot to cast it each day.

The major difference: the ritual creates persisting undead.

I want to know why you cannot add more spells to your dirge though.

has anyone checked out the Runesmith Preview from Wargamer?

www.wargamer.com/pathfinder/runesmith-exclusive

This is a power-tripping petty GM. I'm sorry to insult your friend, but this is not acceptable behavior.

You're now telling us in additional to this out of nowhere penalty he gave your character, he's insulting your ethics and knowledge. He's being a jerk.

The WORST that should have happened if he was being reasonable, is that the weapon didn't function as a reliquary weapon. That's it. Even THAT is making charitable assumptions in the GM's favor.

after the GM calm's down, you need to have a talk about this behavior, because you and your group deserve better from a friend.

So EXCITED!!!!

so much yet to see, the higher level feats for the NEcro, ALL of the Runecarver! the Summoner Remaster! new spells that one of the Wizard subclasses is based on.

98: A hand book for survival, and how to guarantee rescue in cases of being adrift. The words "Liar" are scrawled in the margin. a standard 20 Survival check reveals the printed information is apocryphal.

A Spirit Fascination Reaper Necromancer who is sanctified Holy.

He's a follower of Cayden Cailean, and his Dirge is basically starting battle music, and calling fallen heroes who want another turn in the fight to rise and join him. Like a Norse warrior calling forth Einherjar

Yeah, Pharasma definitely wouldn't. No argument there.

But Cayden Cailean might not object to bringing spirits back for one last (violent) party, as might Abadar allow for pillars of the community to serve it once again, and Gorzreh might enjoy watching those who lost their lives upon the waves and storm to rise to serve their chosen.

Holy Carp, that's it. That's how you make a Hallowed Necromancer. Their power is partially divine as the they are being issued temporary command of souls by their god.

So? by them being simulacra this indicates you are not messing with souls, or at least not full souls, nor are you definitionally dominating or torturing full souls.

You are animating organic remains using necromantic energy drawn from the void. Yes, they are still undead. How is this evil?

I cannot wait. I'm curious how the Runecarver has been updated too. it didn't draw as much attention (at least from me) as the Necromancer, but it is a really cool concept. Really glad I'm a subscriber!

agreed, not sorry I tried.

I want to talk about Dropout TV's Game Changer, and Dropout TV in general.

To start of, I loved Demi on the (not most recent) last episode of game changer. He really ate up his roll and seemed to love monkey's-pawing Grant.

This is a super late update but something that was CRUSHING at the time, but I look back now and it's funny... I had three people. Literally, THREE. And One at one point openly said he was waiting on the next panel.

Charisma is NOT my KAB

Your shadow necromancer suggestion gave me an idea for a "Shadow Fascination". It's in the homebrew channel in the thread I made for Necromancer subclasses.

Because of what Raven just suggested...

Shadow Fascination

In many places, such as Old Osirion, it is believed there is more to the soul than a single piece. Many reflect that the shadow represents so much more. In parts of Numeria devastated by horrific toxic weapons shadows stain walls as the last monuments to their previous owners who died in a terrible flash of light. Now you as a Necromancer have focused on harnessing these shadows. Leaning away from the traditional undead powered by Void Energy, and manipulating the shatter fragments of souls left behind with raw occult power.

Focus Spell: SEIZE SHADOW! you send one of your thralls into an enemy's shadow, on a successful save they are slowed 1 until the end of their next turn, on a failed save they are slowed 1 and frightened 1 until the end of their next turn. On a critical failure they must repeat the saving throw at the end of each of their turns, and the conditions will not reduce below 1 until a successful save. If they critically fail again, the frightened condition increases by 1.

Improvement: Your thralls do not have the undead trait and are immune to both Vitality and Void damage.

Ooo... class archetype The Mirror Fascination.

Your thralls, instead of being undead are considered abominations. They look like someone within your line of sight (though are still limited to medium or small).

Focus spell "Shatter clone" dealing 1d6 slashing damage to all creatures in a 5ft emanation (emanation and damage growing with spell rank) improvement, If your thrall does not take a hostile action, it can make a deception check, using your spell casting bonus, to convince a target that it is the real being. Destroying with a melee attack requires the creature who destroyed them to make a basic reflex saving throw against your Spell save DC, and take 1d6 slashing damage (growing at the same rate as the thrall's strike damage)

Okay so two observations: Have a multi step process to re-fill meds that allow you to complete multi-step processes is frustrating if you let the prescription run out first. Finally got my ADHD meds refilled last night and I'm back on them today.

A slight suggestion to justify the improvement I came up with.

Not a Mummy fascination, but a Preservation Fascination. including mummy's and embalming, and even taxidermy.

And the improvement is that your thralls can pass for living, if sick, members of their ancestry.

Okay, with the Necromancer preview we saw, we got a glimpse at how their subclasses, Grim Fascinations, work in the release version, as well as four Grim Fascinations (Flesh, Spirit, Bone, and Blood)

In the Necromancer character idea section, I suggested a new one: Ash which gave you a focus spell to essentially turn a thrall into a 15ft cloud obscuring to everyone but you. and an improvement that let your thrall's attacks deal fire damage.

and my brain is like an auto-complete machine so I started thinking that it could lead to other Fascinations, not to mention someone else talking about a mummy themed fascination. It makes me wonder what other fascinations would work well?

How about a Rot themed Fascination? Giving you poisonous abilities.

What would you call a mummy themed fascination? what abilities would you give it?

What other Fascinations can you think of?

OR what about the other half. we have, essentially, a more martial focused and a more caster focused. anything else you can think of?

Take this for a wishy-washy opinion, but I don't think "Powerful" can be properly gagued in a game that is designed around team work and support. Some classes are more severely pigeon holed into supportive roles where their contributions are not readily evident.

the barbarian/fighter just did a bajillion poitns of damage... because the rogue/swashbuckler flanked him to lower his AC
and the inventor helped lower his AC, and the Bard was buffing his to hit.

but that's my wishy-washy opinion.

Again, assuming those uncontrolled horde of mindless undead are the ones from the Gravelands, specifically put there by Tar-Baphon a Lich who had anti-social megalomaniacal tendencies even before becoming undead and everyone knows he created them to make Lastwall into a hellscape. And that mindless horde, if uncontrolled, the horde want to eat and attack the living, like any predator or they are carrying out the last order of their last master. WHY does that necessitate all undead being "naturally" evil?

Oh, and to answer your question regarding the undead tending fields in Geb, the same thing as if the lions and tigers and other big predators got out of their cages in any normal zoo, they would follow their instincts, which would cause them to hurt people until put back under control or put down. How evil are those predators?

It is not about killing the undead. It is about the potentially immortal undead wanting to kill all living sentient beings, including any innocent one around them.

If someone is willfully creating uncontrollable constructs bent on killing the people around them, then they are definitely evil in my book.

If the undead you encounter want to do that, why do all undead in Golarion have to be "Ontologically" Evil to justify killing those undead who happen to be a clear danger? I mean mindless undead can be created and controlled so that they don't attack living things, Geb shows that by having their undead put to work growing crops.

Also, your dismissive comments about the constructs are for some reason giving me ideas about really cool plot lines. Like the Automatons aren't bent on killing people, they're programed/enchanted with a specific job to do, but removed from their proper context, their actions are dangerous and wind up hurting people.

Or they could be crafted by a careless or evil necromancer. I mean they're mindless undead, no one has a problem with killing them, especially to protect other people or creatures, any more than they'd have a problem destroying an out of control construct.

Also, there you go conflating Evil and unholy again. morality and holiness while they will very frequently overlap, are not synonymous. For example, Pharasma, as I've been told, works to extend the Universe via safeguarding the cycle of life and death. This is undoubtably good. It is not, however holy, per the game.