A few things I have to add:
1. For a companion, I have had players with the skeletal companion variant necromancer from Unearthed Arcana [basically replaces a familiar but no XP penalty if destroyed] and this worked really well.
2. Necromancers with healing spells. I preferred the 2nd ed. Necromancer's Handbook spells on the subject. There were spells that transfered hp between creatures. For a 3.x parallel, see the forced empathic wound transfer psionic power.
3. White and Gray Necromancers. I don't see a problem with them because they have been in the cannon for long enough; might not notice them all the time but they're around. As for dealing with mechanics, spell selection is definitely the problem here.
|
3. White and Gray Necromancers. I don't see a problem with them because they have been in the cannon for long enough; might not notice them all the time but they're around. As for dealing with mechanics, spell selection is definitely the problem here.
My big concern with the Necromancer is that it's got an anemic selection of options for Pathfinder Society (explicity non-evil) play.
A 'gray' or 'white' Necromancer is, IMO, mainly justified because otherwise, there's an unplayable 'forbidden' character option in the core book, which seems counter-intuitive.
3. White and Gray Necromancers. I don't see a problem with them because they have been in the cannon for long enough; might not notice them all the time but they're around. As for dealing with mechanics, spell selection is definitely the problem here.My big concern with the Necromancer is that it's got an anemic selection of options for Pathfinder Society (explicity non-evil) play.
A 'gray' or 'white' Necromancer is, IMO, mainly justified because otherwise, there's an unplayable 'forbidden' character option in the core book, which seems counter-intuitive.
I may be relatively "new" to Pathfinder, but whats with this 4e and "Pathfinder Society" that forbids a person from being evil? I've ran VERY successful groups where the party was generally good but had that "bad apple" in the group. Chaotic evil rogues, neutral evil clerics, etc. all participated fine. Just because a person is evil doesn't mean they are out right on a rampage versus the world. I don't understand how anybody could tell a player "You cant play evil."
That's really neither here nor there... but leads me to my next point:
Animate dead - is it actually evil? While undead (under control of the necromancer) can be mere guardians and co-horts, if they are left unattended what is their natural reaction - to attack the living closest thing. However, what would be a wolf or a bear's natural reaction? The same thing. It's just "nature." (I use that term loosely since we're talking about an undead creature :p )
The real argument I can understand the standpoint on is you are essentially desecrating a corpse by making it do your bidding. Unless of course the person allowed it so they could protect/watch over something/somebody even after death.
I personally love the way the necromancer is setup now, the 8XHD undead is awesome, and i've always preferred the cursing/debuffing necromancer style of play instead of the Undead lord. If anything I feel clerics and wizards have taken quite a twist. I use to prefer the play of the cleric more if i wanted a leader of undead and the necromancer would be the debuffer, now it seems the roles have changed and I actually much prefer it the way it is.
I honestly think animate undead is just like any other spell - it can be used for good or for evil. A (poor) example is the Mummy 3 (havent seen the movie, just the trailers) but they summon an undead army to fight another army - are you saying they are evil because they did this? ;)
|
|
I may be relatively "new" to Pathfinder, but whats with this 4e and "Pathfinder Society" that forbids a person from being evil?
Pathfinder Society is 'Organized Play' at conventions, and their rules strictly forbid evil characters (I think Xendrik Expeditions is the only 'organized play' group that did allow evil characters, and they have very specific rules forbidding certain actions, such as attacking another player).
[Apparently stealing stuff from other party members was allowed, as a Rogue in one GenCon game took my characters Handy Haversack off of him with a Sleight of Hand check. And no retaliation was allowed. Very frustrating game... The same player got annoyed later and got the entire party killed deliberately. Jerk.]
I've ran VERY successful groups where the party was generally good but had that "bad apple" in the group. Chaotic evil rogues, neutral evil clerics, etc. all participated fine. Just because a person is evil doesn't mean they are out right on a rampage versus the world. I don't understand how anybody could tell a player "You cant play evil."
Some DMs are uncomfortable with the subject, but the vast majority of the 'problem' (and much more so with Organized Play, where every group is going to consist of six strangers from around the planet who have no vested interest in being friends or not screwing each other over) is players who take 'evil' as an excuse to be rampaging disruptive dicks to everyone else at the table. Then again, I've seen just as many Paladin players take the 'lawful good' on their character sheet as an excuse to steal from other party members, attack other party members, leave them to die and even kill other party members who've 'killed their prisoners' or 'insulted their honor' or whatever lame excuse they've come up with this time for being dicks. The 'no evil characters' rule is intended to cut down on the amount of rampant jerkitude, but, IMO, most jerks play LG anyway, and they get away with it.
Animate dead - is it actually evil? While undead (under control of the necromancer) can be mere guardians and co-horts, if they are left unattended what is their natural reaction - to attack the living closest thing. However, what would be a wolf or a bear's natural reaction? The same thing. It's just "nature." (I use that term loosely since we're talking about an undead creature :p )
Two things;
One, we have no idea if Animate Dead is going to be 'really evil' as of Pathfinder. Skeletons and Zombies in 1st, 2nd and 3.0 were neutral and mindless, as incapable of evil or malevolence as a torch or dagger.
In 3.5, they became 'evil,' despite being incapable of actually ever doing anything evil. They could be *ordered* to kill a bunch of nuns and orphans, but that doesn't make them evil anymore than a dagger is evil if it is used to stab a bunch of people. They could also be ordered to build a community center for a bunch of homeless war refugees, but that doesn't make them *good,* either. They are mindless animations.
I have no idea what Jason intends to do with them. Will mindless creatures return to their 1st-3rd edition roots and remain incapable of malice aforethought? Will he continue the 3.5 trend of making mindless things capable of thinking nasty thoughts with their non-existent minds and hatching evil schemes and hating all life? I dunno.
Second, animated dead, in every edition of the game, have been mindless, and, barring orders to attack people, sit around like lumps on a log.
Unlike, say, Flesh Golems, created from dead bodies stitched together and animated by an imprisoned elemental spirit, who *DO* go berserk and slaughter people indiscriminately (and are, insanely enough, Neutral), zombies and skeletons have never had any 'go berserk and kill people' rules. They are machines, animated by magic, and they won't wander around attacking people because they 'hate all life' as they are incapable of hating, or loving, or being angry, or being hungry. They just do what they are ordered.
It just so happens that most of the people who Animate Dead order them to do nasty things, like 'attack anyone who enters this room.' Mindless undead have no 'natural reaction' to 'attack living things.' They just run programs.
Personally, Ive always despised Alignment, and thought it was the worst aspect of the Game.
We are all so worried about our alignment and it going away from what we have defined it as.
I like the idea of unaligned.
And not making any one thing or spell "evil" perse.
that doesnt mean we cant have villans and evil wizards or races that are generally seen as "evil" (orcs et. al)
And paladins can still have their knights code of ethics they must follow to keep their powers.
But the alignment issue is the issue with the necromancer.
However, we need MORE necromantic spells too.
There just arent enough.
As for undead companions? PLEASE.
A necromancer isnt necessarily evil just like a mortitian isnt evil, but they would certainly be shunned. Use of their spell list may be banned (and illegal) in certain cities, and they would do well to hide their activities and affliations.
Something as similar as a disguise self spell on the undead companion.
"hey why is your drinking buddy always moaning?"
"way too much grog my freind, way to much grog"
|
I've created a thread that offers an Alternative Necromancy School Specialist Bonus. At the end of the post I offer a roleplaying idea that I believe will allow you to use this alternative for a more "White" Necromancer.
Here is the link to the post: Alternate Necromancy School Specialist Bonus
Thanks.