Not going to get into the argument over what is a necromancer or what isn't (other than to say there are two answers to that, the metagame answer is 'You are a Necromancer if you choose to specialize in Necromancy', the game world answer is 'You are a Necromancer if you raise dead'. The two are not mutually exclusive nor linked. In the game world, an Evoker who casts lots of raise dead spells is a Necromancer. In the game world, a Necromancer (specialized wizard) who never raises a dead is still a Necromancer (it's his training), but only himself and his mentor's know it.).
Some examples of a White Necromancer in the base rules would be :
1) A Necromancy trained Wizard who is a priest of a god who is anti-undead. The training is for so he understands necromancy, fights necromancy, etc. One of those, know what you fight things.
2) An investigator for the king, who uses his necromantic magic to investigate crimes (casts speak with dead, preserves corpses for detailed examination later, etc).
I'm sure there are others, but those are off the top of my head.
Note however, that Necromancy = Evil is only true for the default world of PRPG/D&D. There is non-evil necromancy in other worlds. One example would be Forgotten Realms, where there are Good Lich's.
Anyways, I noticed more than a few of you talked about the spells not fitting the schools as well ect. Um so why not just toss all the spells back in a pot and redo the spells. Personally i would love to see that done cause I agree not all the spells currently really fit their schools all that well.The Necromancy spells do fit rather well.
... Except for cause fear, scare, fear, eyebite (although I'm willing to allow this to stay as a reworked "evil eye" type spell, replacing fear with pain), and symbol of fear. Enchantment is for direct mind-affecting spells (including all fear effects), IMO. The way 3.x separated (some) spells into the ("wrong") arcane schools is a topic in and of itself, however.
As far as "white," "gray," and "black" necromancy go, a good resource is the 2nd Ed Complete Book of Necromancers. They have a pretty good breakdown, IMO (I have quibbles with some of their choices, but it's fairly well thought out).
Calls Argothe a rules lawyer
I laughed out loud.
If you think you can take the cross examination of two prosecutors, I have a question for the witness.
Over in the '[Evil] is Evil?' thread you are pretty adamant that [Evil] descriptors do not make one Evil.
Where do you derive your assertion that Animating Dead is an inherently evil act if not from the spell descriptor?
My contention is, why be a NECROMANCER when you deliberately avoid the portion of the hallmark necromantic powers
Because there are many examples in fantasy literature of those who study necromancy in order to fight it (i.e., Van Helsing in Dracula) and/or help others (i.e., arcane spells that act like vampiric touch in reverse or allow the caster to sacrifice the power of another prepared spell into healing energy). That 3.x removed the "white" aspects of necromancy from earlier versions (1st and 2nd Ed AD&D) is a limitation of the system not of the concept. There are many things about the 3.x magic system that can use minor changes, IMO, and the way spells are distributed among the various arcane schools is one of them.
|
As far as "white," "gray," and "black" necromancy go, a good resource is the 2nd Ed Complete Book of Necromancers. They have a pretty good breakdown, IMO (I have quibbles with some of their choices, but it's fairly well thought out).
The 2E Complete Book of Necromancers is also amazingly cool as a source of inspiration. It's one of three 2nd edition books that I keep in my 3E collection, because it's awesomeness transcends editions.
Calls Argothe a rules lawyerI laughed out loud.
If you think you can take the cross examination of two prosecutors, I have a question for the witness.
Over in the '[Evil] is Evil?' thread you are pretty adamant that [Evil] descriptors do not make one Evil.
Where do you derive your assertion that Animating Dead is an inherently evil act if not from the spell descriptor?
LOL, let the record show that the witness did not call the prosecutor a "rules lawyer".
In fact, I simply called him a lawyer. His debating tactics remind me of real life trial attorneys. Take a statement, find one wrong word in it, attack that word until the whole statement is perceived to be invalid. It's a great courtroom tactic, and in fact, a great message board tactic too, and he's really good at it.
However, the flaw in that approach is that the original statement might be really a valid, valuable, and maybe even wonderful bit of information. Maybe not. But destroying the entire statement because a word is misused, discarding the entirety of the meaning behind the statement, is really just a way to avoid facing something you don't want to deal with - perfect for convicting a felon or exonorating a defendent, but it's a lousy way to carry on a meaningful discussion.
Enough of that.
To answer your question, my spoiler in my first post in this thread covers my theology in my campaign.
It's not the [evil] descriptor on the spell that makes those who use it evil.
Read the spoiler, it's all in there. Short version: souls go to wherever they belong and live happily ever after in their own afterlife. Animating the corpse yanks that soul back and stuff it, or part of it, or just the energy of it, into the body. This causes a separation from their happy ever after, and creates a torment for them as well. Agony. Despair. Horror. Which is why undead are so angry all the time. Anyone who does this for any reason is evil - you can't even do it for "good" reasons.
It would be similar to the idea that if you could torture and slaughter innocent children, and if somehow doing that would give you the power to fight crime, to catch and convict murderers, to make the world a safer place. You might even tell yourself that the children are dying for a good cause, and you are doing good because of it, but it's still evil.
Only worse, because undeath violates life and the laws of the universe that all the gods enforce. I didn't go into how and why undeath even came into being, but it insults every god. Good gods, evil gods, gods of life, gods of death, and even insults gods that don't care about all that stuff by robbing them of souls. The universe doesn't tolerate it, the gods don't tolerate it, Life and Death don't tolerate it, and the ends never justify the means.
Now, that said, I've also said that this is my own cosmology. My first novel, Soulrender, comes out this coming winter, with more to follow. You can read about it there, though it won't be like the first book is full of cosmological ramblings.
As far as true D&D goes, straight by the RAW, a "good" wizard could theoretically animate some corpses and run off to slaughter evil orcs, ogres, trolls, and other wicked stuff and heroically save the town with his army of undead do-gooders. The RAW supports that. I have never said it didn't.
I just cannot see roleplaying it that way. Ever.
The only exception that might come to mind is bargaining. Speak With Dead. It happens to be a Necromancy spell of a lower level than Animate Dead, and maybe that's for a reason - listen up all you "white" necromancers.
So cast the spell, get on the horn with the dead up there in their afterlife (I use "up there" figuratively), and get their permission, their verbal contract, complete with tasks to fulfill and expiration dates. Get them on board and willing to be ripped out of heaven (etc.) and tormentend in their rotting corpse while you force their shambling bodies to fight evil orcs. Then stick to the letter of the bargain.
Maybe I'd let the alignment slide for someone doing this. But nobody in the village, town, or countryside will. You march your undead through town, or the outlying farmlands, off to slay some orcs, and when the posse comes out with their pitchforks and their mage-slaying heroes and their undead-destroying clerics, your cries of "But I'm a white necromancer" will fall on deaf ears - exactly like they would in mondern day New York City if you somehow pulled the same stunt there in our real world.
My contention is, why be a NECROMANCER when you deliberately avoid the portion of the hallmark necromantic powersBecause there are many examples in fantasy literature of those who study necromancy in order to fight it (i.e., Van Helsing in Dracula) and/or help others (i.e., arcane spells that act like vampiric touch in reverse or allow the caster to sacrifice the power of another prepared spell into healing energy). That 3.x removed the "white" aspects of necromancy from earlier versions (1st and 2nd Ed AD&D) is a limitation of the system not of the concept. There are many things about the 3.x magic system that can use minor changes, IMO, and the way spells are distributed among the various arcane schools is one of them.
Studying it and being it are two different things.
I would never call Van Helsing a necromancer. A witch hunter, or vampyre hunter, sure. A learned man of science, sure. Unless there is some book somewhere where Van Helsing uses magic related to death/undeath? He certainly does no such thing in the original Bram Stoker work - so my reference is to that Van Helsing, who is no more a necromancer than Sherlock Holmes is a crook.
As for redistributing spells, sure, I'm all for it. One thing I'd start with is create a Life school and put stuff in there like False Life. Create a Death school and put stuff in there like Circle of Death. Leave the Necromancy school where it is with just the undead stuff there. Things like Cause Fear go to Enchantment. Then let all the "white" necromancers take stuff from Life or Death or Enchantment or Illusion or Evocation or Conjuration, etc., as they please, but they would have to leave Necromancy alone.
Would we still call them Necromancers if they took nothing from Necromancy after this kind of redistribution?
Heck no. I surely would not. I don't even call them Necromancers now, regardless of whether or not they specialized in the necromancy school. Instead, I call them "necromancy specialists" and leave the term "Necromancer" for those evil guys who animate the dead.
Ok thanks for the answer.
In 2nd Ed there was a little setting that came out called Jakandor that was kind of a case study in differences in cultural perspectives. One side were Necromancers doing what they thought they had to do to carry on their society and the other were Barbarians who thought all Necromancers had to be evil. Was kind of interesting though I never got to play it.
I'll be running an Eberron campaign soon, and of course there we have the nation of Karnath where Necromancy was used to fight the Last War and the idea has gotten a lot of cultural acceptance, within that one country.
The rules don't seem to indicate that the mindless undead (zombies or skeletons) are all that angry or the soul is really perturbed at all by the raising.
I think the line is 100% crossed when you tie down a soul, and any kind of incorporeal or intelligent undead creation would be undeniably and inherently evil.
I guess it does come back around to the setting and to some DM discretion, there's not much in the rules that is going to definitively settle this.
BTW Set thank you for the Complete Book of Necromancer's suggestion. I went to the crate of yellowing books and dug it out for a read later tonight. Good excuse to go back to old sources.
Yeah the old complete necromancer book was good... actually most of the old complete books were good (as was the second edition savage species IMO).
|
StuffI agree that is what it does now . However I'm saying where it came from.
And yes you can "Cure" death. It's called resurrection, or in 1st and 2nd edition any damage was a "small death" so was cured with cure light wounds.
Now I'm not saying that you are wrong about where it is currently, or where it maybe headed, I'm just saying where it came from, and why people would like it to return there.
I didn't think you were saying I was wrong, I was agreeing in a slightly different manner. I wouldn't mind it at all that they're lumped, I just think they're in a new category now. s'all.
The issue in 3.x becomes, if all these spells go into conjuration because they deal with summoning energy from specific places, then what do we need necromancy for? Almost everything necromancy does is through the manipulation of negative energy, or can quite easily be squared away in another school (speak with dead goes quite nicely into Divination for example while Fear can go right back into Enchantment).
Now this is where I disagree. There is plenty of room for necromancy still. Manipulation of spiritual things, like the soul, should still fall under that category in my opinion. Inflict and Cures are physical in nature, however, and for that reason I see them as conjuration spells.
But you do bring up a good point, and to play devil's advocate (which is all i'm doing here). Necromancy seems relatively... weak (for lack of a better word)... as a school. The spells aren't weak, just the nature of the school by comparison to many of the others. Even divination seems more powerful in some ways. Why not maybe make necromancy as subschool? Many of the necromancer's iconic spells would probably be better fit into other schools anyway. Animate Dead and Summon Undead really do fit better as conjuration spells. Ray of Enfeeblement could easily fit under transmutation or enchantment. Is there something wrong with doing this?
If you summon souls... Conjuration... if you are talking with spirits... dinivation... if you need protecting from spirits or to banish ghosts... Abjuration...
I would like to see all the life/death/undeath stuff returned to necromancy, just my position. I think the positive energy/ negative energy junk was a bit much and wonky personally.
Turning Nercomancy into a subschool could be an option... Not sure I like it from a sacred cow stand point, but it might work.
|
|
If you summon souls... Conjuration... if you are talking with spirits... dinivation... if you need protecting from spirits or to banish ghosts... Abjuration...
I would like to see all the life/death/undeath stuff returned to necromancy, just my position. I think the positive energy/ negative energy junk was a bit much and wonky personally.
Turning Nercomancy into a subschool could be an option... Not sure I like it from a sacred cow stand point, but it might work.
2E's Spells & Powers Players Option book introduced the notion that there could be Schools of Philosophy (Abjuration, Alteration, Conjuration/Summoning, Enchantment/Charm, Divination, Illusion/Phantasm, Invocation/Evocation and Necromancy), Schools of Effect (Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Dimensional Magic, Force, Shadow) and Schools of Thaumaturgy (Alchemy, Artifice, Geometry, Song, Wild Magic), and that a single spell might find it's way onto the lists of multiple different schools of these different classifications (the 2E spell firewater being an Alteration/Transmutation spell, a Fire spell and an Alchemy spell, for instance).
The notion is somewhat slanted by the need for the designers to kludge the original eight schools into one branch, despite six of those schools being more 'schools of effect,' in that they are collections of spells of disparate theme that perform a specific *effect* (Abjuration, Conjuration, Transmutation, Evocation, Divination, Enchantment) and two of them being 'schools of philosophy,' in that they are thematically connected spells that may have wildly different effects (Illusion, Necromancy).
Using this sort of sorting scheme, a spell like 'Deathwatch' could be both Divination (as an effect) and Necromancy (as part of the necromancer 'theme list'). Similarly, a spell to Summon Shadows could be part of the Illusion *and* Necromancy 'theme lists,' and yet clearly be a spell of the School of Conjuration, based on it's effect, to conjure up critters from another place.
Anywho, as to the original topic, I don't consider a spell 'evil' unless it creates disease or conjures up the sorts of undead critters that can propogate themselves. Anything that can uncontrollably cause havoc on targets other than those who would have been the specific target of the spellcaster, are squiffy, in my book. Not 'turn evil and become an NPC!' squiffy, but something to watch out for. Killing someone with negative energy (which, per the rules, is a completely neutral force, from a plane that isn't even *mildly* evil-aligned) is no more or less evil than killing someone by burning their face off with an acid arrow or rupturing their internal organs with a sonic orb or having them devoured alive by rats via summon swarm.
The game also provides guidelines for arcanists to whip up their own spell creations, and a gray or white necromancer would be well within his rights to create his own version of animate dead that animates organic material (wooden simulacra, for instance) by imparting it with some of his own life-energy (costing him some Con to cast, which he can recover normally). A weaker version of this effect might allow him to animate his construct and suffer instead of Con damage, a penalty to Con for as long as the construct is active, as part of his life-force is tied up in maintaining it's current state of animation. As a necromancer is wont to do, he's shifting life-force around and causing things that should not move to move in a grotesque mockery of human existence, but he's using *his own* life-force to animate the materials, and he certainly doesn't animate corpses. Dreadfully unsanitary, that.
He could also operate entirely through incorporeal undead, and even the most squeamish of sorts who would burn a man at the stake for travelling with shambling corpses, might respond warmly to a man who honors their ancestors and bridges the spirit world, so that they can receive ancestral guidance, and pass on messages to loved ones who have long since departed the world of flesh. Instead of a skeleton minion (per the Unearthed Arcana alternate class feature for Necromancer specialists), perhaps the 'seer' or 'ancestral speaker' or 'spiritualist' has instead a bodiless fetch, the spirit of some soul who refused to pass on, and has instead chosen to serve as her eyes and ears in both the worlds of spirit and flesh, serving as an incorporeal and invisible scout, but lacking the material effectiveness of even an undead shadow (causing only nonlethal damage, or a shaken condition, upon a touch). Again, very thematically 'necromantic,' what with the communicating with ghosts, and even having one as an ally / mentor / travelling companion, but nary a rotting body in sight.
The fetch companion will be a *vastly* more effective scout (and intelligent ally) than the Skeletal Minion class feature would provide, but would be dead weight in a fight, for the most part, unable to significantly effect the material world. Spells like Unseen Servant, Animate Rope, Mage Hand, Open/Close, Obscuring Mist, Chill Touch, Ray of Enfeeblement, etc. would strongly fit the thematic feel of this sort of spiritualist necromancer, and anything that could work in a 'ghostly' theme, even spells like gust of wind or major image or summon swarm, become options.
|
|
If you summon souls... Conjuration... if you are talking with spirits... dinivation... if you need protecting from spirits or to banish ghosts... Abjuration...
I would like to see all the life/death/undeath stuff returned to necromancy, just my position. I think the positive energy/ negative energy junk was a bit much and wonky personally.
Turning Nercomancy into a subschool could be an option... Not sure I like it from a sacred cow stand point, but it might work.
Actually, I don't know why the necromancy school really is a sacred cow since there were always spells that worked with death and dying that weren't necromancy related. It certainly had a feel, but as it was said earlier in the thread the best option for being a necromancer was actually to not play a wizard. An evil cleric had a much stronger necromancer feel: controlling huge numbers of undead, being able to heal and bolster them, spells that affect a person's mind and spirit...
There certainly are a number of spells that could probably be necromancy spells that aren't, but would make sense in a subschool. The Shadow [insert spell school] spells have the feel, me thinks. Temporal Stasis, Searing Light, and a few others could also have this as a subschool in addition to their own description. (Though I would like to rant about Searing Light's lack of fire subschool... I won't).
Anyhow, this is mostly still just devil's advocate stuff. Should I put this in a new thread?
Yeah you got me sold on the theming things out again Set, I had almost forgot about that. It was something I definitely enjoyed in 2ed too. One of the things that annoyed me out of the PHB 2 for 3.5 was when they had dual school spells, but having either prohibited meant the spell wasn't available to you.
Bringing back all the philosophy schools and the alternates would be nice.
|
|
The question of semantics is insane here. I think what the main argument is about is whether or not a character is (by the rules) a necromancer or (by campaign observation) a necromancer. The point of the game is to HAVE FUN (Rule #1), and to create a character you want to play.
If a person wants to create a White Necromancer, then by all means go ahead. Its up to the DM to determine if that is something that would be recognized by the campaign.
The second rule of RPG is THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO EVERY RULE (Rule #2). And keeping in mind Rule #1, you can use Rule #2 anyway that people can agree on.
You can be a White Necromancer by the rules if you want to be, but don't expect everyone in the campaign to call you that. You might be referred to as a Deathwarder, a Necromage, a Lifeguardian, even if you don't think of your character in that way. It is also possible that your character will find the very learned whom you can share your philosophy with and who will understand it.
An illusionist can surround himself with illusory armies of the undead.
A transmuter can make an army of the living physically like the undead for a short period of time.
Even an evoker, with metamagic feats or whatever, can cast spells that have an evil/deathly feeling to them.
By the rules, they would still be illusionists, transmuters, and evokers, but the campaign might refer to them as Necromancers. And certainly an evil cleric who goes against the laws of Pharasma and raises the undead (or whatever she would be opposed to in the campaign), would be considered a "Necromancer", even if he thinks of himself as a cleric.
So, there's some leeway here. And the misunderstanding is mainly one of semantics. There is the "Necromancer" of the rules, which is really just a way to classify spells and abilities, and there is the "Necromancer" of the campaign, which can have different meanings with different DMs, different regions, even different times in the campaign history.
The very first campaign I ran, a 2nd Ed homebrew, had the characters in Poinscral, a theocratic nation run by the Temple of Grasdah. This nation had once fought immense wars with the living dead, and as a result, all arcane magic has been outlawed in the nation. Punishable by fines, imprisonment, and even death in some cases. In this campaign, there was a small school of Necromancers who disguised themselves as a Temple to Azor, caring for the dead (in the adventure they were searching for a vampire), and preventing necromantic "foul play". I guess they were White (or at least Gray) Necromancers for the adventure, though I know that more than one of them experimented with Necromantic Acid. The point is, in the campaign they were not known as Necromancers, even though thats what they were. They disguised themselves as clerics to prevent from being discovered by "the law".
The question of semantics is insane here.
Yeah, I thought so too.
The second rule of RPG is THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO EVERY RULE (Rule #2). And keeping in mind Rule #1, you can use Rule #2 anyway that people can agree on.
And I draw an exception from that. If we are just going to exception out everything why even have rules?
|
|
And I draw an exception from that. If we are just going to exception out everything why even have rules?
The second rule of RPG is THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO EVERY RULE (Rule #2). And keeping in mind Rule #1, you can use Rule #2 anyway that people can agree on.
Because one of the ways which humans have fun is by expressing uniqueness, and breaking out of the box. But I hope that your game does not exception out everything. The second rule only works if the first rule is held paramount. And if you look at the second rule closely, it says. THERE IS AN (singular) EXCEPTION TO EVERY RULE.
So exceptioning out everything would effectively break down the rule systems, would become chaotic, and not fun at all. However, if every PC character has a little thing different from the main rules, something that helps them stand out a little bit, then you have exciting exceptions. (Or what I call excexc - pronounced "eggs-eggs")
What's really exciting is when you have a rule system like PFRPG that allows for unique variations in just about everything, for PC and NPC alike. Still, it is very possible (due to the inherent properties of rule systems) for two characters to be exactly alike in terms of game statistics. This is where the second rule comes in handy. In the interest of preserving RULE #1, the DM (or players, with DM approval) can apply RULE #2.
So, we could use the above example, and say we have two Necromancers. They have access to the same spells, have basically the same statistics, feats, and skill selection. But one of them is leaning toward white Necromancy, and the other wants to do something more Gray with his character. Their alignments might even be the same, and the difference would be a matter of character development.
If I, as a DM, were faced with that situation, its time to dig a little into the first two rules. First of all, I would look into the character backgrounds. If there are differences, that's where they would be. The white Necromancer, for example, might be part of a cursed family that has been studying magic for generations to relieve the Curse. Perhaps the character suffers minor damage (1d2 subdual) whenever a positive energy channeling is done nearby, or something minor like that. It could even develop over time with the onset of nightmares. Perhaps a family member died, passing the curse onto the character in question. There are a variety of ways this could play out, and the DM is encouraged to use RULES #1 and #2 to let it happen. Anyway, the character learns, eventually, either by family research or through divination spells, or perhaps by making a quest to a special seer in the campaign, that his family has been cursed for spilling the life's blood of a Blessed Unicorn. The character learns that he can seek out redemption from a Unicorn, and as part of the process gains a permanent blessing of life that weakens his necromantic powers.
And that, is how exceptions to the rules are played out. As a DM, and as players, I would say your first obligation is to each other, to have fun telling a story in a world you have jointly created, and secondly to the rules that you are allowing to direct the creation and manifestation of that world.
I will be straightforward here. There have been times when I have completely thrown the rules out the window in the effort to have fun, and those were the nights in which the most original things sprang up, both from the characters, and from myself. It meant, making a lot of stuff up on the go, but we enjoyed it, and that was the main purpose for the experience. After the session, I would go back and review what happened, and try and fit it in the rules, but if it didn't, I really didn't worry about it that much. There could have been divine intervention at work, or ancient magic - and that led to further adventure ideas as new rules, feats, powers, abilities were created on the fly, along with minor artifacts, npcs, towns, villages, even entire countries. They were spun out of mutual creative endeavors, not out of attempting to use all the rules to make them. I worried first about how I wanted the world to feel and to be, and then I worried about how the rules would fit into that. And if the rules didn't fit, I made exceptions.
You're correct, councelor, I did say those exact words. When I said "a few" I hadn't really counted them. You, however, did.
Just to set the record straight, at no point have I ever, in our many debates, simply criticized your word choices and used that as an attempt to negate your position. That is not my rhetorical style. I prefer to argue by questioning the premise upon which an argument is based. All arguments are based on a set of presumptions or foundations that are assumed to be correct; the premise. If each side is arguing from a different premise then the arguments are like two ships passing in the night and nothing can ever be accomplished. However, if both sides can agree on a set of presumptions that lay the groundwork for an argument then the terms of the argument will allow for true conflict and resolution. Alternatively, if the presumptions of your opponents are false, and you can demonstrate their falsity, then the remainder of your opponents' arguments are also false as they begin from an untrue premise.
In this case, the core presumption upon which your position is based, is that Animate Dead is the defining ability for a Necromancer. This is where you and I disagree and this is what I have been arguing against.
Your premise, that Animated Dead is the defining ability for a Necromancer, is not based in the rules; 93% of the Necromancer's spell list have nothing to do with raising the dead.
Nor is your presumption consistent with the flavor of Necromantic magic as provided by PfRPG. Necromancy is described as having three core areas: death, unlife and life-forces. Raising the dead is only a subset of one of these three areas, leaving death magic, magic that controls or destroys undead and magic that manipulates life forces for the necromancer who does not wish to control a "vast army of undying minions".
Raising the dead, as opposed to communing with spirits, did not become associated with Necromancy until the era of video games. Originally, Necromancy was exactly what its Greek roots would lead you to believe - Divination through communion with spirits. (Necro meaning Death and Mancy meaning Divination) Through the middle ages Necromancy was associated with all "black arts" and included the summoning of demons. In modern times Necromancy is understood to mean all magic that manipulates death. Necromancy
So your original argument: "There isn't much left for "white" necromancers to do. Speak With Dead, a few damaging spells like Chill Touch or Finger of Death (though using necromancy to kill people may be difficult to justify as "white" - but then so is killing people with a sword)." is based on the premise that Animate Dead is the defining spell for Necromancers, which has been demonstrated to be a false assumption and therefore your argument is also false. In fact, 93% of their spell list, the majority of the flavor and the modern interpretation of what it means to be a Necromancer is still available for the "White Necromancer" as addressed by the OP.
But the shingle you hang on your door, or the title you give yourself "Hey, everyone, I'm a Necromancer!" doesn't answer the original poster's question as to whether practicing necromancy is evil or not...
Back to the OP, answering the question of "is necromancy evil" really requires us to examine what kind of N/necromancy the person in question is practicing.
You might want to go and reread the OP, better yet, I'll just drop it in a spoiler here:
I have a player who's keen to play a Necromancer specialist Wizard who worships Pharasma.
Given that Pharasma's church despises undead, a number of the specialist powers of the Necromancer would seem unsuitable.
I found a thread on White Necromancy here, but that's probably a little more complicated than I'm after.
I was thinking of simply replacing the current 8th and 20th Necromancer powers with the 8th and 20th Repose domain powers.
I'm hoping some folks out there could give me their thoughts.
Cheers!
Your answer to the OP, that a White Necromancer has nothing left to cast at that point and should probably pick another school is just plain wrong, as I have demonstrated above. There is plenty of room to play a "White Necromancer", especially if the DM is willing to swap out school powers so that role playing won't cause too big of nerf to the player's roll playing.
My contention is, why be a NECROMANCER when you deliberately avoid the portion of the hallmark necromantic powers thata. give the class its flavor
b. give the class most of its power
c. generally define what everyone believes to be the core of the class?Why not just be a universalist and play with some spells from the necromancy school?
Yes, you can do everything you've said. You can be a necromancer and never cast any evil spells or do any evil deeds.
Likewise, you can be a fighter and never hit any enemies with any weapons. You can be a bard and never perform any kind of bardic performance. You can be a barbarian and wear tuxedos and sing ballads and never ever rage or commit uncivilized acts.
You can do all that.
But why?
The whole point of N/necromancy is undead. The rest of it is fringe benefits so the school won't have just 5 spells. Or 10. Or 15.
Without the undead element, there isn't much for necromancers to do.
The reason why this "why" confuses you is that you begin from a false premise. If you discard your premise and begin to look at the school in its entirety you will find that your confusion evaporates and you will understand the intention and POV of the OP.
This player wants to focus on the necromantic arts and wants to worship a deity of death who will not tolerate the raising of undead. There is a lot of consistent flavor there for the player to work with. Rather than focusing on the unlife magic of the school, as you suggest, they will instead focus on the death magic, controlling or destroying undead, and manipulation of life forces aspects of the school. This is a good character concept that is consistent with the rules, the flavor of the school, and more in line with the common understanding of the term, both from a D&D and Real World perspective.
As a Universalist this character concept would lose a lot of its flavor, it would also pass up the bonus spells per day granted by the school, and in this case, with this DM, would also pass up death magic focused special abilities granted at levels 8 and 20.
This "White Necromancer" will be a potent caster with a background that sets up excellent role playing opportunities. In no way, shape or form is a "White Necromancer" analogous to a Fighter who doesn't fight or a Bard who doesn't perform. This is just one more example of your tactic of reaching for outrageous and hyperbolic examples that no reasonable opponent would defend rather than addressing the actual merits of the argument at hand. This, it would seem, is your rhetorical style.
|
|
Your premise, that Animated Dead is the defining ability for a Necromancer, is not based in the rules; 93% of the Necromancer's spell list have nothing to do with raising the dead.
While that's true, the definition of Necromancy spell on PHB p 174 states; "Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife and the life-force."
At 1st level, a Necromancer has Cause Fear, which has nothing to do with Necromancy, Chill Touch, which indeed does manipulate the life-force, and Ray of Enfeeblement, which is a Transmutation *effect*, just like Ray of Clumsiness, but thrown into the Necromancy school anyway.
At 2nd level, he's got a Transmutation, an Enchantment, two actual Necromantic effects, another Enchantment and an Evocation, all labeled as 'Necromancy' spells.
Sure, 93% of the Necromancer's spell list isn't Animate Dead-related, but, based on 1st and 2nd level alone, 2/3rds of the Necromancer's spell list are effected 'on loan' from other schools!
DM_Blake's point, if I'm understanding him correctly, isn't that a 'white necromancer' can't get by on Fear spells or Ray of Enfeeblement / Waves of Fatigue / Bestow Curse, but he could play a damn Enchanter or Transmuter if he just wants to mess with people's minds or debuff their bodies, and has zero interest in casting any actual Necromantic effects, to 'manipulate the power of death, unlife and the life-force.'
And, while I do usually agree with DM_Blake's points, in this case, the side-argument about rhetorical styles and hyperbole is perhaps reaching Trollman-esque levels of derailment, which is obscuring the very valid points he's making.
Upthread I mentioned the possibility for a 'white necromancer' to research some more spirit / life-force based spells to use, rather than be limited to a subsection of what is already an anemic (and thematically muddled) spell selection. IMO, that's the best bet for the white necromancer player. Whip up some spirit summoning spells, some spells to channel the deceased to gain special abilities for a short time (necromantic 'buffs,' with a side-line into vodoun), some spells that allow one to infuse one's own life-force into another (as a buff) or an inanimate object (to make it a servant construct), etc. Tons of unique spell possibilities that have nothing to do with undead powers or fear effects or using Contagion to create life! and gamely trying to pretend that it's 'Necromancy.'
Necromantic elephants? And this one's an albino?
Now I've truly seen it all.
White elephant gifts...
A crunchy one, and a little ripe. Number ten.
Necrophant?
Necrolephant?
Elemancer?
Elephomancer?
Pachymancer?
Olymancer?
Necromancy Spells by Flavor/School
Level 0:
Bleed - Death Magic
Disrupt Undead - Unlife Magic
Touch of Fatigue - Life Force Magic
Level 1:
Cause Fear - Enchantment
Chill Touch - Death/Life Force
Ray of Enfeeblement - Life Force
Level 2:
Blindness/Deafness - Death
Command Undead - Unlife
False Life - Life Force
Ghoul Touch - Enchantment
Scare - Enchantment
Spectral Hand - Life Force
Level 3:
Gentle Repose - Death
Halt Undead - Unlife
Ray of Exhaustion - Life Force
Vampiric Touch - Life Force
Level 4:
Animated Dead - Unlife
Bestow Curse - Death
Contagion - Death
Enervation - Life Force
Fear - Enchantment
Level 5:
Blight - Death
Magic Jar - Life Force
Symbol of Pain - Death
Waves of Fatigue - Life Force
Level 6:
Circle of Death - Death
Create Undead - Unlife
Eyebite - Enchantment
Symbol of Fear - Enchantment
Undeath to Death - Unlife
Level 7:
Control Undead - Unlife
Finger of Death - Death
Symbol of Weakness - Life Force
Waves of Exhaustion - Life Force
Level 8:
Clone - ?
Create Greater Undead - Unlife
Horrid Wilting - Death
Symbol of Death - Death
Level 9:
Astral Projection - ?
Energy Drain - Life Force
Soul Bind - Death
Wail of the Banshee - Death
At 1st level, a Necromancer has Cause Fear, which has nothing to do with Necromancy, Chill Touch, which indeed does manipulate the life-force, and Ray of Enfeeblement, which is a Transmutation *effect*, just like Ray of Clumsiness, but thrown into the Necromancy school anyway.At 2nd level, he's got a Transmutation, an Enchantment, two actual Necromantic effects, another Enchantment and an Evocation, all labeled as 'Necromancy' spells.
Sure, 93% of the Necromancer's spell list isn't Animate Dead-related, but, based on 1st and 2nd level alone, 2/3rds of the Necromancer's spell list are effected 'on loan' from other schools!
I'll give you that all of the fear effects should probably be enchantment spells and not Necromancy spells, but as you can see from above I think most of the remainder of the spells fit into the Death, Unlife or Life-Force rubric.
DM_Blake's point, if I'm understanding him correctly, isn't that a 'white necromancer' can't get by on Fear spells or Ray of Enfeeblement / Waves of Fatigue / Bestow Curse, but he could play a damn Enchanter or Transmuter if he just wants to mess with people's minds or debuff their bodies, and has zero interest in casting any actual Necromantic effects, to 'manipulate the power of death, unlife and the life-force.'
The problem I have with this argument is that it ignores the Death and Life-Force spells of the Necromancy list and focuses solely on the Unlife spells. I don't see why Bleed, Chill Touch, Blindness/Deafness, Gentle Repose, Bestow Curse, Contagion, Blight, Symbol of Pain, Circle of Death, Finger of Death, Horrid Wilting, Symbol of Death, Soul Bind and Wail of the Banshee or False Life, Spectral Hand, Vampiric Touch, Enervation, Magic Jar and Energy Drain are any less iconic or less necromantic than Animated Dead, Create Undead and Create Greater Undead; and that is granting your argument that the fatigue and weakness spells belong in another school, which I don't agree with but I am willing to set aside for now to prevent that topic from derailing this discussion.
I agree with the modern interpretation described in the wiki I linked, that Necromancy is magic that focuses on death. For me the iconic necromancy spells are things like Blindness, Circle of Death, Finger of Death and Wail of the Banshee. Nothing says Necromancy like simply falling over dead because your will was too weak to overcome the horror of my gaze. I also don't understand how False Life, Spectral Hand, Vampiric Touch, Enervation, Magic Jar or Energy Drain can be considered anything other than iconic and defining necromancy spells.
And don't forget to look at this from the perspective of the OP; we have a player who wants to play a Wizard who worships the Goddess of: "fate, death, prophecy, birth". Thematically, there are two schools that would fit well with this character concept: Divination and Necromancy. The player would apparently prefer to focus on the death aspect of their deity so they chose Necromancy. Unfortunately, this deity does not approve of Undeath and her followers would never create Undead, so the player can not cast Animate Dead, Create Undead or Create Greater Undead. However, in their quest to destroy these abominations that affront their goddess the Necromancer can still cast Disrupt Undead, Command Undead, Halt Undead, Undeath to Death and Control Undead. In fact, if not for the fact that 3/4 of the Necromancy school powers have to do with raising or being undead - btw DM_Blake this should have been part of your argument - one might argue that the Necromancer is perfectly suited to be a follower of Pharasma as they have the best death related magic and the best magic for dispatching undead abominations. Which brings us back to the OP, what might a DM who wants to encourage this role-playing do, what abilities might they alter, so that this otherwise thematically consistent and intelligent character concept does not suffer when it comes to roll-playing?
And, while I do usually agree with DM_Blake's points, in this case, the side-argument about rhetorical styles and hyperbole is perhaps reaching Trollman-esque levels of derailment, which is obscuring the very valid points he's making.
I agree. I only responded with a style argument after he repeatedly posted comments critiquing my style in place of critiquing my arguments. If we can get back to the arguments and step away from the name calling I would be most pleased.
Upthread I mentioned the possibility for a 'white necromancer' to research some more spirit / life-force based spells to use, rather than be limited to a subsection of what is already an anemic (and thematically muddled) spell selection. IMO, that's the best bet for the white necromancer player. Whip up some spirit summoning spells, some spells to channel the deceased to gain special abilities for a short time (necromantic 'buffs,' with a side-line into vodoun), some spells that allow one to infuse one's own life-force into another (as a buff) or an inanimate object (to make it a servant construct), etc. Tons of unique spell possibilities that have nothing to do with undead powers or fear effects or using Contagion to create life! and gamely trying to pretend that it's 'Necromancy.'
I like some of these suggestions, summon spirits for example, but I am not sure that they would be needed to make a "White Necromancer" viable. There are still plenty of potent spells left on the Necromancy spell list. Personally, as a Necromancer, I would go with the following for my bonus spells: Ray of Enfeeblement, Spectral Hand, Vampiric Touch, Waves of Fatigue, Circle of Death, Finger of Death, Horrid Wilting, and Wail of the Banshee; I don't think there is a loser in that whole list - ok maybe Waves of Fatigue. Moreover, Pharasma is Neutral, her followers could still cast [Evil] spells just not Undead creation spells. There are a lot of cool, useful and powerful things that the character sketched by the OP could do and they will do them best as a Necromancer; which is really all I have been trying to say.
I'll try to explain it a different way.
Imagine this game, this spell list, without Necromancy at all. In this imaginary game, the necromacy school doesn't exist.
We have spells like Bull's Strength that make you stronger and Ray of Enfeeblement that make the target weaker. Without a necromancy school to put that Ray into, it would probably go into Transmutation, just like Bull's Strength.
Likewise for almost every body-altering spell in our current necromancy school.
Chill Touch: Damage + STR drain, that could go into evocation or transmutation in a world where necromancy doesn't exist.
Blindness/Deafness: Transmutation
False Life: Transmutation
Spectral Hand: Conjuration
Ray of Exhaustion: Transmutation
Vampiric Touch: Evocation probably.
Bestow Curse: Transmutation (or abjuration if we want to get clever)
Enervation: Transmutation
Etc.
All the fear-ish spells would go into enchantment, of course.
We could do all that. It would be strange, and it wouldn't be D&D or pathfinder, but such a game could exist with spells like these that were not in a necromancy school of any kind.
It is only D&D/Pathfinder that has rules that says these are life/unlife/life-force spells and therefore belong to necromancy.
That's not the dictionary definition of necromancy (neither is animating zombies). That's purely a gamist definition that exists in D&D.
What I have been saying is that the word itself, "necromancer", evokes in the minds of everyone who's ever heard of a necromancer, the ideas of animating the dead.
Find 100 people on the street, make sure you pick people who have never played D&D but they know, in their own minds, what a necromancer is. Ask those 100 people to define what a necromancer is, in their own words, and almost all of them will tell you some version of "necromancers raise the dead".
That's all I've been trying to say.
When you ask a very general question like "Can necromancers be good?" which is essentially what this whole thread was about, then we really need to be sure we're talking about the same thing.
Are we talking about a general understanding of what a necromancer is and does? Are we talking about spcifically the gamist D&D term for necromancer? Are we talking about the wizard who specializes in the necromancy school? Are we talking about a wizard who likes to scare and weaken enemies but never mucks around with undeath?
There's lots of ways we can go with the generic word "necromancer" even if we limit our audience to D&D players, and each version of the word will get a different answer to the generic question "Can necromancers be good?".
To me, the word "necromancer" means someone who animates the dead. Period. If he's not doing that, then he's not a "necromancer" no matter what his teacher at the school of necromancy taught him to call himself, and no matter what the game term for his wizard specialty is.
Casting scary spells, or spells that weaken the enemy, drain their levels, or kill them, is just magic. It's really no different than casting stunning spells, spells that damage the enemy, drain their HP, or blow them to bits. The name we hang on the first group, necromancy, vs. the second group, evocation, is just gamist terminology.
But to be a necromancer, one must animate dead or else one is just a pretender to the title.
If we're going to limit our hypothetical "white necromancer" to just scary, draining, and deadly spells, we could just as easily start a new thread asking if a "white evoker" could be good-aligned, and it would be no more meaningful if we did.
What I have been saying is that the word itself, "necromancer", evokes in the minds of everyone who's ever heard of a necromancer, the ideas of animating the dead.
Find 100 people on the street, make sure you pick people who have never played D&D but they know, in their own minds, what a necromancer is. Ask those 100 people to define what a necromancer is, in their own words, and almost all of them will tell you some version of "necromancers raise the dead".
That's all I've been trying to say.
I understand that is what you have been trying to say; see the "Commoner Standard" argument from up-thread.
What I have been trying to say is that this is your understanding and not necessarily the common understanding. Moreover, common understanding isn't necessarily the ideal standard with which to evaluate arcane subject matter.
My personal feeling is that Death Magic is more iconic than Animate Dead. The wiki I linked agrees that the modern interpretation of the term is magic that manipulates death, not magic that creates zombies. Most pop-culture related to Zombies thinks of them as victims of a virus or infection not the undying minions of a Necromancer.
I honestly feel that the focus you place on raising the dead comes from a personal bias and not from the rules, flavor, history or common understanding of the term.
To me, the word "necromancer" means someone who animates the dead. Period. If he's not doing that, then he's not a "necromancer" no matter what his teacher at the school of necromancy taught him to call himself, and no matter what the game term for his wizard specialty is...But to be a necromancer, one must animate dead or else one is just a pretender to the title.
This is your personal interpretation. That interpretation is not supported by the rules, flavor, history or common understanding of the term. Your premise is false. If your broaden your scope to include death and life-force magic this whole thread will make a lot more sense.
When you ask a very general question like "Can necromancers be good?" which is essentially what this whole thread was about, then we really need to be sure we're talking about the same thing...There's lots of ways we can go with the generic word "necromancer" even if we limit our audience to D&D players, and each version of the word will get a different answer to the generic question "Can necromancers be good?"...
If we're going to limit our hypothetical "white necromancer" to just scary, draining, and deadly spells, we could just as easily start a new thread asking if a "white evoker" could be good-aligned, and it would be no more meaningful if we did.
Please, re-read the OP. This is the source of your confusion. The question has never been about whether or not a Necromancer can be good in terms of alignment; the deity discussed in the OP is Neutral. The OP's question was what abilities would you sub-out for the 8th and 20th level school powers of the Necromancy School if you wanted to allow a Wizard who followed Pharasma to not take too large of roll-playing hit for coming up with an otherwise thematically consistent role-playing concept.
Are we talking about a general understanding of what a necromancer is and does? Are we talking about spcifically the gamist D&D term for necromancer? Are we talking about the wizard who specializes in the necromancy school? Are we talking about a wizard who likes to scare and weaken enemies but never mucks around with undeath?
I would think that the boundaries for this discussion would have been set by the OP. In which case we would be discussing Necromancy from a gamist's perspective as the OP posed a gamist question. At which point your argument that a necromancer who doesn't raise the dead has nothing left to do falls apart due to simple math - 7% of Necromancy spells create undead, the other 93% do not. From a gamist's perspective the so called "White Necromancer" still has a lot of tools available including their most powerful abilities.
It is only D&D/Pathfinder that has rules that says these are life/unlife/life-force spells and therefore belong to necromancy.
That's not the dictionary definition of necromancy (neither is animating zombies). That's purely a gamist definition that exists in D&D...
Casting scary spells, or spells that weaken the enemy, drain their levels, or kill them, is just magic. It's really no different than casting stunning spells, spells that damage the enemy, drain their HP, or blow them to bits. The name we hang on the first group, necromancy, vs. the second group, evocation, is just gamist terminology.
That isn't an argument against Necromancy so much as it is an argument against all school separation; if magic is just magic then why bother with the segregation at all? The answer is of course that the rules, balance, etc require us to do so. In other words, gamist reasons. Recalling, however, that this is a thread based on a gamist OP I am not sure why we shouldn't use gamist terminology or apply gamist reasoning.
So in conclusion, there is no reason why the "White Necromancer" described by the OP is not consistent with the flavor of the Necromancy School - after all they are a worshiper of the goddess of death and Necromancy is highly specialized in Death Magic. There is no reason why this character wouldn't be viable - the death and life force magic spells available to the school are very potent - especially considering the OP is going to sub-out the 8th and 20th level abilities for those of the Repose Domain. So the reality is this character will have a lot of potent options available to them even though they won't cast Animate Dead, Create Undead or Create Greater Undead.
I'll get to the school realignments in a separate post.
Imagine this game, this spell list, without Necromancy at all. In this imaginary game, the necromacy school doesn't exist.
In order to do that we should also take a look at the definitions for each school you are suggesting that these spells could otherwise be moved into:
Abjurations are protective spells. They create physical or magical barriers, negate magical or physical abilities, harm trespassers, or even banish the subject of the spell to another plane of existence.
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), create objects or effects on the spot (creation), heal (healing), bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), or transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation).
Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior. All enchantments are mind-affecting spells. Two types of enchantment spells grant you influence over a subject creature.
Evocation spells manipulate energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, they create something out of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage.
Transmutation spells change the properties of some creature, thing, or condition.
We have spells like Bull's Strength that make you stronger and Ray of Enfeeblement that make the target weaker. Without a necromancy school to put that Ray into, it would probably go into Transmutation, just like Bull's Strength.
Transmutation is worded generally enough that Ray of Enfeeblement could be considered to be changing the properties of some creature. However, contextually, Transmutation doesn't have any spells that apply direct penalties; the closest it gets is size modifiers. Meaning this really does make more sense as part of the Life Force sub-section of Necromancy.
Chill Touch: Damage + STR drain, that could go into evocation or transmutation in a world where necromancy doesn't exist.
Chill Touch does not manipulate energy, tap an unseen source, create something out of nothing or change the properties of some creature. It "disrupts the life force of living creatures." to deal physical and ability score damage. This very clearly only fits under the Necromancy School.
Blindness/Deafness: Transmutation
Again, this spell doesn't change the properties of some creature. They are not dazzled, they do not merely think they can not see, their eyes have not grown shut and they have not been polymorphed into a blind creature. The "powers of unlife" render the target permanently blind. Their optic nerves are dead. That is Necromancy.
False Life: Transmutation
Again, this is not a property alteration. This is life force manipulation to grant the caster temporary hit points. Nothing else in Transmutation works like that.
Spectral Hand: Conjuration
This spell is not calling a creature from another plane, it is not creating an object on the spot, it is not healing and it doesn't teleport anything. It is not Conjuration. What it does do is manifest a portion of the caster's life force, at the cost of hit points, allowing the caster to deliver spells through this spectral manifestation. Again, Necromancy is the only place this fits.
Ray of Exhaustion: Transmutation
Transmutation allows you to changes the properties of a condition, it does not allow you to impart a condition, like Exhaustion, on a target. Again, this is life force manipulation and it only belongs in Necromancy.
Vampiric Touch: Evocation probably
Evocation is not synonymous with deals damage. This spell does not create energy or tap an unseen force. No other Evocation spell lets you steal the life force of your opponents to give your temporary hit points. Again, this only works as a Necromancy spell.
Bestow Curse: Transmutation (or abjuration if we want to get clever)
Transmutation could account for the ability penalty, save that none of its other spells can manage that feat, but it does not allow for the other effects of the Curse. You still need a Necromancy school to fit this into.
Enervation: Transmutation
Levels are a property? If that counts why isn't everything a Transmutation spell? No, again, this is life force manipulation. This is classic Necromancy.
All the fear-ish spells would go into enchantment, of course.
No argument here. Fear should be Enchantment.
Imagine this game, this spell list, without Necromancy at all. In this imaginary game, the necromacy school doesn't exist.
So the problem with this imaginary world is that outside of the Fear spells none of the rest of the school meets any of the definitions of the other magic schools. You need a Necromancy school because you would have nowhere left to put those spells with out redefining the other schools and if you redefine the other schools then Animate Dead is just as likely to be a Transmutation effect as Bestow Curse or Ray of Exhaustion. At which point it becomes irrelevant to the argument taking place in this thread; hence the separate post.
Blindness/Deafness - Death
Command Undead - Unlife
False Life - Life Force
Ghoul Touch - Enchantment
Scare - Enchantment
Spectral Hand - Life Force
Oops. Ghoul Touch can't be Enhancement as it isn't Mind Affecting. Back to Necromancy with that one... lets call it Unlife.
good stuff
You are almost completely correct however transmutation does have a couple of direct damage spells, chiefly among them is disintegrate .
|
|
Ray of Enfeeblement - Life Force
If ray of Enfeeblement is 'life-force,' then so is bull's strength. If 'life-force' is simply strength, and not level drain or negative energy damage or life-force-transference (like magic jar), then bull's strength is every bit as much a Necromancy spell as ray of enfeeblement, since both spells manipulate the Strength ability, which you are defining as 'life-force.'
This is cherry-picking, pure and simple. Ditto with the fatigue effects, since spells that affect fatigue in the other direction, such as restoration and heal, are *not* Necromancy spells.
Can you agree that the *majority* of Necromancy spells were thrown into the school from other effects, simply to make up for their paucity, and therefore make for dubious examples of 'necromancy' (with the fear spells being the most egregious example), even if you don't agree with every specific example?
I mean, seriously, what the heck does ghoul touch have to do with the manipulation of life-force? It's a touch-range hold person that creates a nasty stink around the paralyzed victim. Yeah, it very oddly mimics the abilities of undead ghouls and ghasts, but that doesn't make it Necromancy any more than a Wizard casting gaseous form and talking in a bad Transylvanian accent in the hopes that someone thinks that he's a vampire is 'necromancy.'
And spectral hand? That's about as 'necromantic' as unseen servant. Ooh, it looks ghostly, but has absolutely no ghostly attributes. Big whoop. It's no more or less necromantic than ghost sound.
If ray of Enfeeblement is 'life-force,' then so is bull's strength. If 'life-force' is simply strength, and not level drain or negative energy damage or life-force-transference (like magic jar), then bull's strength is every bit as much a Necromancy spell as ray of enfeeblement, since both spells manipulate the Strength ability, which you are defining as 'life-force.'
This is cherry-picking, pure and simple. Ditto with the fatigue effects, since spells that affect fatigue in the other direction, such as restoration and heal, are *not* Necromancy spells.
Can you agree that the *majority* of Necromancy spells were thrown into the school from other effects, simply to make up for their paucity, and therefore make for dubious examples of 'necromancy' (with the fear spells being the most egregious example), even if you don't agree with every specific example?
I mean, seriously, what the heck does ghoul touch have to do with the manipulation of life-force? It's a touch-range hold person that creates a nasty stink around the paralyzed victim. Yeah, it very oddly mimics the abilities of undead ghouls and ghasts, but that doesn't make it Necromancy any more than a Wizard casting gaseous form and talking in a bad Transylvanian accent in the hopes that someone thinks that he's a vampire is 'necromancy.'
And spectral hand? That's about as 'necromantic' as unseen servant. Ooh, it looks ghostly, but has absolutely no ghostly attributes. Big whoop. It's no more or less necromantic than ghost sound.
I admit in my post that Ray of Enfeeblement could be considered Transmutation, I don't think it is more likely to be Transmutation, but it could belong there with out requiring you to rewrite the definitions of the schools.
Fatigue effects on the other hand are not Transmutation. Transmutation does not apply conditions it can only modify them. The spells that remove fatigue effects aren't Transmutation either, they are Conjuration (Healing), which used to be part of the Necromancy school. If you read back through the thread we already had a discussion about how many people feel Healing should still be Necromancy and that the whole idea of Conjuring positive energy is less thematically satisfying than restoring life to dead tissue. Conjuration took positive energy and Necromancy kept negative energy so if positive energy relieves fatigue then negative energy should cause fatigue which means that fatigue effects belong in Necromancy.
So I would not agree that the majority of Necromancy spells belong in other schools. The Fear effects do belong in Enchantment, the Symbols might belong to Abjuration, and Ray of Enfeeblement could meet the definition of Transmutation save that it looks more like the negative energy abilities of Necromancy and that Transmutation has no other method for applying ability penalties outside of size modifiers.
The rest of the spells can not be moved out of Necromancy with out rewriting the definitions of the other schools or the spells themselves, like they did with healing. Ghoul Touch, for example, can not be an Enchantment spell as it is not Mind Affecting. In order to make it fit into the Enchantment school either the school would have to be re-written to allow non-mind affecting spells or the spell would have to be re-written to be mind affecting; at which point it becomes difficult to explain why the target is putting off a sickening stench. The spell just makes more sense as Unlife magic and part of the Necromancy school.
A ghostly, glowing hand shaped from your life force materializes and moves as you desire, allowing you to deliver low-level, touch range spells at a distance. On casting the spell, you lose 1d4 hit points that return when the spell ends (even if it is dispelled), but not if the hand is destroyed. (The hit points can be healed as normal.) For as long as the spell lasts, any touch range spell of 4th level or lower that you cast can be delivered by the spectral hand. The spell gives you a +2 bonus on your melee touch attack roll, and attacking with the hand counts normally as an attack. The hand always strikes from your direction. The hand cannot flank targets like a creature can. After it delivers a spell, or if the hand goes beyond the spell range or goes out of your sight, the hand returns to you and hovers.
The hand is incorporeal and thus cannot be harmed by normal weapons. It has improved evasion (half damage on a failed Reflex save and no damage on a successful save), your save bonuses, and an AC of at least 22. Your Intelligence modifier applies to the hand’s AC as if it were the hand’s Dexterity modifier. The hand has 1 to 4 hit points, the same number that you lost in creating it.
So it is made up of my life force, costs me 1d4 hit points, can deliver touch spells and is incorporeal... like a ghost... how is this not Necromancy?
Although the official definitions of the term necromancy are less threatening, the common usage of it both in modern english and in literature from the middle ages to now express a much darker conceptualization of its meaning.
Honestly, I don't buy the argument that healing spells are a form of necromancy or that necromancy has juristiction over life force. The common use of the term is almost always negative and usually represents a perversion of the natural or creative forces and is almost never used to convey a positive, natural or creative force.
My suggestion for your delima: there are no necromancers of Pharasma.
If you absolutely can't bring yourself to say no to a player, then go with the divination aspects of the official definitions (i.e. contacting the spirits of the dead for guidance and influence over future events) and marginalize the commonly associated pseudo-demonic/evil aspects.
Above all, forget about the rules and mechanics and look for how the role would work in your campaign world with respect to the society the character exists in and the context of the relationship between it and the divine.
Can you envision a solid acceptable role for a necromantic magic user of Pharasma that reinforces that relationship between the deity and society?
|
|
It is good of the OP to try and accomodate his player, but it is not feasible.
I would have to tell the player no. There is no such thing as "White Necromancy."
Magic that deals with things like stealing souls and animating other people's friends and loved ones like puppets on strings is inherently evil.
If a character is attempting to strive for good, then he or she should avoid corrupting forces. Necromancy is pretty high on that list of corrupting forces.
It is good of the OP to try and accomodate his player, but it is not feasible.
I would have to tell the player no. There is no such thing as "White Necromancy."
Magic that deals with things like stealing souls and animating other people's friends and loved ones like puppets on strings is inherently evil.
If a character is attempting to strive for good, then he or she should avoid corrupting forces. Necromancy is pretty high on that list of corrupting forces.
Necromancy is not inherently corruptive or evil. After all, disrupt undead and undeath to death are necromancy spells, as are life bolt, spawn screen, and heart of stone. None of those spells have any evil or corruptive overtones at all. This clearly illustrates that there IS room for a White Necromancer.
I actually disagree with the notion that animating corpses is inherently evil, as well. I can't recall if the Pathfinder setting explicitly states what happens to the souls of those raised as mindless undead, but IMO the mindless undead should be soulless undead as well. Thus, there's room for neutral or even good uses of animate dead. For example, a nation where citizens can voluntarily and proactively sell their body to be raised after they die. The state then uses the skeletons and zombies in low-skill, high-danger professions like mining, quarrymen, alchemy servants, etc. This is (with my interpretation of mindless undead) a win-win situation: the commoners who need money can sell something materially useless to them, and the state gets cheap, uncomplaining, perfectly obedient workers for dangerous tasks. This also prevents living beings from needing to work those jobs, lowering the mortality rate in that country.
(For the record, I, too, prefer the 1st and 2nd edition healing spells being Necromancy. Makes much more sense than the positive energy hooey we have now, especially as positive energy is still plenty dangerous to living beings. By rights, a heal spell cast on a character with 150 or fewer maximum hp, who is at or near full health, should explode them. Just look at the Major Positive Dominant trait or the Positive Energy Plane in the various planes books.)
Can you envision a solid acceptable role for a necromantic magic user of Pharasma that reinforces that relationship between the deity and society?
Absolutely. There are quite a few Necromancy school spells that involve destroying, harming, protecting against, or fooling undead. I could easily see a Necromancer of Pharasma that devoted his life and his magical learning to eradicating undead. Also, Pharasma is NOT against the taking of life energy. She grants the Death domain to her clerics, after all. Those enervating spells are perfectly acceptable to her followers. The only Necromancy school spells that a true follower of Pharasma is forbidden are the ones that raise or enhance undead.
Remember, Pharasma is NOT a Good deity. She's neutral, and she's the Goddess of Death (not Undeath, that's Urgathoa). Her followers count among them both midwives and executioners.
|
|
Necromancy is not inherently corruptive or evil. After all, disrupt undead and undeath to death are necromancy spells, as are life bolt, spawn screen, and heart of stone. None of those spells have any evil or corruptive overtones at all. This clearly illustrates that there IS room for a White Necromancer.
I actually disagree with the notion that animating corpses is inherently evil, as well. I can't recall if the Pathfinder setting explicitly states what happens to the souls of those raised as mindless undead, but IMO the mindless undead should be soulless undead as well. Thus, there's room for neutral or even good uses of animate dead. For example, a nation where citizens can voluntarily and proactively sell their body to be raised after they die. The state then uses the skeletons and zombies in low-skill, high-danger professions like mining, quarrymen, alchemy servants, etc. This is (with my interpretation of mindless undead) a win-win situation: the commoners who need money can sell something materially useless to them, and the state gets cheap, uncomplaining, perfectly obedient workers for dangerous tasks. This also prevents living beings from needing to work those jobs, lowering the mortality rate in that country.
(For the record, I, too, prefer the 1st and 2nd edition healing spells being Necromancy. Makes much more sense than the positive energy hooey we have now, especially as positive energy is still plenty dangerous to living beings. By rights, a heal...
Okay, in that case, I'm going to dig up your dead relatives and loved ones, put strings on them, and move them around as my own personal marrionettes.
Still okay with that? After all, they are a cheap form of entertainment that never complains.
Necromancy is corrupting and evil because the callous use of such magic shows a disrespect for the dead AND for the wishes of that dead person's friends and family.
Corpses are not resources, they are the former bodies of friends and relatives the necromancer just desecrated, because he or she needed cheap, uncomplaining labor.
Healing is the restoration of life, not the reanimating of dead tissues, and therefore has no business being necromancy. It never did.
Necromancy is corrupting and evil because the callous use of such magic shows a disrespect for the dead AND for the wishes of that dead person's friends and family.
That's a cultural value judgement that something is evil more than an absolute evil.
For examples, look to either the nation of Karnath in Eberron where it is an honor to be selected for undeath and service in the nation's army, just like service in life has its own form of honor.
Also 2nd Ed. Jakandor with the nation of Necromancers that had to use raised corpses as labor so their society would survive. Everyone understood that they benefited from the labor in life. On death their soul would be free to seek its final destination, but their bodies would live on to server their children and grandchildren.
Someone raised into this value system or social contract might believe it is the most normal and necessary thing in the world, and could be a paragon of virtue among their own people.
Okay, in that case, I'm going to dig up your dead relatives and loved ones, put strings on them, and move them around as my own personal marrionettes.
What on earth does that have to do with any of my examples or arguments? That is the very textbook definition of a straw man argument.
Please either address my examples and/or arguments or don't respond to my posts. Don't make things up out of whole cloth and pretend that they have any bearing on my position.
Once again, so you don't have to read up the thread: There are many, many Necromancy spells that involve slaying undead (and ONLY undead), protecting against undead, fooling undead, etc. There is also nothing inherently wrong with animating a corpse as long as the animation has no impact on the soul that previously resided in the corpse. There is, of course, something wrong with doing so without consent, doing so for malicious purposes, and so on -- but that's not a problem with the raising of the dead, that's a problem with not getting consent or doing something that would be evil even if it didn't involve necromancy.
Your straw man involves doing something malicious without the consent of the deader or its family. That is an amoral act even if the spell was resurrection rather than animate dead.
I guess that's probably the best possible outcome, since you refuse to engage my points.
|
|
I guess that's probably the best possible outcome, since you refuse to engage my points.
Zurai, if you cannot see why animating corpses is evil on your own, then there is no need at all for me to engage your points.
It is a waste of my time and effort that I could be spending doing something I enjoy, rather than attempt to convince you of my points when your mind is made up.
Therefore, we are done. May your games go well, and I hope you enjoy them!
Zurai, if you cannot see why animating corpses is evil on your own, then there is no need at all for me to engage your points.
What about all that Necromancy that has absolutely nothing to do with animation of corpses, and does in fact have everything to do with DESTROYING those animated corpses? That was my very first point: Necromancy is not all about animating corpses. Your position is that Necromancy is inherently evil because animate dead is a Necromancy spell. How does that make undeath to death or life bolt or spawn screen inherently evil?
Hai gusy!
Wutz goin on in dis thread?
Zurai, if you cannot see why animating corpses is evil on your own, then there is no need at all for me to engage your points.What about all that Necromancy that has absolutely nothing to do with animation of corpses, and does in fact have everything to do with DESTROYING those animated corpses? That was my very first point: Necromancy is not all about animating corpses. Your position is that Necromancy is inherently evil because animate dead is a Necromancy spell. How does that make undeath to death or life bolt or spawn screen inherently evil?
Perhaps these spells shouldn't have been included as Necromancy to begin with. Necromancy should probably only have to do with manipulating dead things (not including destroying them in this definition) - either animating their corpses or contacting/trapping/enslaving their spirits. But as the game evolved over the years, the various designers probably felt they had to include spells in the school so as not to underpopulate it relative to the other schools. The definition of Necromancy has become pretty loose in this game, unfortunately.
Perhaps these spells shouldn't have been included as Necromancy to begin with. Necromancy should probably only have to do with manipulating dead things (not including destroying them in this definition) - either animating their corpses or contacting/trapping/enslaving their spirits. But as the game evolved over the years, the various designers probably felt they had to include spells in the school so as not to underpopulate it relative to the other schools. The definition of Necromancy has become pretty loose in this game, unfortunately.
So vampiric touch shouldn't be a Necromancy spell? Nor wail of the banshee, enervation, or finger of death? After all, none of those spells deal with either animating the dead or contacting, trapping, or enslaving souls. Yet they're still iconic Necromancy spells.
<---- watches this merry-go-round take another spin...
|
Zurai, if you cannot see why animating corpses is evil on your own, then there is no need at all for me to engage your points.What about all that Necromancy that has absolutely nothing to do with animation of corpses, and does in fact have everything to do with DESTROYING those animated corpses? That was my very first point: Necromancy is not all about animating corpses. Your position is that Necromancy is inherently evil because animate dead is a Necromancy spell. How does that make undeath to death or life bolt or spawn screen inherently evil?
Not to mention the fact that the cure spells were originally necromancy spells.
The definition of Necromancy has become pretty loose in this game, unfortunately.
There are definitions of necromancy that state necromancy is used to make unnatural things happen. Fits what the DnD spells are doing, IMO.