|
In my last campaign (before I started GMing myself) I played a wizard. I wanted to specialize in Necromancy, because I thought having zombie minions would be fun. My GM said I couldn't, even after I promised that I wouldn't bring zombies into towns. He also said that he wouldn't let me learn Animate Dead, since it's an evil spell. I volunteered to try and roleplay my neutral wizard's descent down the slippery slop into evil, but no dice.
In a previous campaign, I was trying to decide what class to play. We had a druid healer, a ranger, and a barbarian, so a dedicated caster would fit right in. I suggested a neutral cleric of a neutral deity, so I could channel negative energy and deal sweet AoE damage while buffing party members. The GM forbade negative energy.
In both these cases, the only real reason he gave was GM fiat. He has on occasion run "evil campaigns" where everybody's evil and we set out to conquer the kingdom, but I feel like PCs should be allowed to exist in a moral gray area. Has anyone else here had such a situation? Do you disallow channeling negative energy or choosing Necromancy as the specialized school? Does your GM disallow it? Has anyone played with such characters and found any problems inherent?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
....but negative energy isn't evil.
Also, Juju Oracle. Spirit Vessels allow you to cast animate dead without the [evil] descriptor through the use of wendo spirits. Mindless undead created this way are neutral. Intelligent undead have the alignment of their creator.
This only helps if the block is solely because of alignment issues of course.
We allow it if it won't be inherently disruptive to the type of game going on, but we also deal with the consequences as well. Most people react badly to seeing bodies rising up and moving about. Even when there are neutral or even good undead or ways to make undead, culture is going to factor into it as well. In Egyptland, certain mummy creation processes might be considered sacred, and they may actually be. People react differently in Transylvanialand, even if those means are truly holy. Or just okay.
Alignment is a frequent concern for GMs that want to run a certain type of campaign, but also is the addition of several new parties to combat scenarios. Even with a basic medium zombie having 2HD, it's possible for a level 5 necromancer to bring 10 zombies into a battle.
For many GMs, this isn't an issue, but quite a few can't handle four PCs, 10-14 minions (animal companions/familiars too), and the orc raiding party in one fight.
More often than not, the GM just wants the players to play white knight heroes and be grateful for the loot given.
I obviously run standard necromancers along with anything else my, admittedly insane, players want to attempt. That said, the group has great chemistry and tries to work with me to make the session pan out.
|
In my last campaign (before I started GMing myself) I played a wizard. I wanted to specialize in Necromancy, because I thought having zombie minions would be fun. My GM said I couldn't, even after I promised that I wouldn't bring zombies into towns. He also said that he wouldn't let me learn Animate Dead, since it's an evil spell. I volunteered to try and roleplay my neutral wizard's descent down the slippery slop into evil, but no dice.
In a previous campaign, I was trying to decide what class to play. We had a druid healer, a ranger, and a barbarian, so a dedicated caster would fit right in. I suggested a neutral cleric of a neutral deity, so I could channel negative energy and deal sweet AoE damage while buffing party members. The GM forbade negative energy.
In both these cases, the only real reason he gave was GM fiat. He has on occasion run "evil campaigns" where everybody's evil and we set out to conquer the kingdom, but I feel like PCs should be allowed to exist in a moral gray area. Has anyone else here had such a situation? Do you disallow channeling negative energy or choosing Necromancy as the specialized school? Does your GM disallow it? Has anyone played with such characters and found any problems inherent?
Yes I have had the above problem and i think Necromancer above answered it well.
Although not be able to channel negative energy is s hard for me to swallow. I do agree that a Necromancer in some games just would not work... all depends on the world the DM created. That being said I give my players every opportunity to create the character they want. If your having a hard time playing what you want just sit down and talk with the DM a few minutes earlier before the game. Be honest and their is almost always a compromise... even if its Hey that character you want to play would be perfect for my next game"...
In a previous campaign, I was trying to decide what class to play. We had a druid healer, a ranger, and a barbarian, so a dedicated caster would fit right in. I suggested a neutral cleric of a neutral deity, so I could channel negative energy and deal sweet AoE.
That is a little strange, by RAW there is no such problem as far as I know. It is possible the DM is either concerned about rules balance or isn't very sure how the rules work and doesn't want the extra hassle, or if you are playing in a homebrew setting where negative energy is evil.. Neutral gods can grant a cleric the ability to channel harmful energy; it wouldn't be too far from smiting an enemy of the faith. It is fine with what I know of the Golarion deities, especially if you use the variant channeling that does half damage and imposes additional effects.
I kind of agree with your GM, but it depends entirely on the campaign, a party with a druid, ranger and barbarian is likely not very sympathetic towards a necromancer. The juju Oracle might be a better fit thematically, but if your GM does not want players to animate dead, cast magic jar or summon demons you will just have to go with it and think of a less dark concept character.
Remember that GMs need to get some kind of enjoyment out off the game as well it is often easier to have players adjust to the GMs concepts than the GM adjusting to each of their players, creating a character that does not stroke well with the GMs vision is not going to be very productive in the end.
If you've got access to Ultimate Magic (or your GM will let you reference the PFSRD in its stead) you might try the skeleton summoner feat. This feat oozes with flavor (evil-curious caster somehow bringing forth a skeleton with a normal summons just reeks of awesome to me) and doesn't require the costs surrounding undead animation.
In my last campaign (before I started GMing myself) I played a wizard. I wanted to specialize in Necromancy, because I thought having zombie minions would be fun. My GM said I couldn't, even after I promised that I wouldn't bring zombies into towns.
*snip*
I suggested a neutral cleric of a neutral deity, so I could channel negative energy and deal sweet AoE damage while buffing party members. The GM forbade negative energy.
I'm not sure if I agree with non-negotiable forbidding, but it raise a question as to *why* you want to travel with a horde of zombies in your wake and *why* your DM is against the idea.
Discuss the subject with your DM. Chances out zombies are not even the main issue.
'findel
The GM doesn't want to allow evil. He's had bad experiences with it, and doesn't want it derailing the campaign. Its a right he has to impose on the campaign, and its a VERY common rule.
At least you have the option not to summon in evil things anymore. In 3.5 if you wanted something more useful than a tribble for the first five levels you had to get something eeeevil.
Of course summoning in fiendish creatures and addressing them in their native languages probably didn't help...
The other thing to look out for is party unity. I have seen DMs try to do this in lots of ways.
I have had DM flat out forbid me from attacking another player's character because of a bad experience he had once with another group of players. It didn't matter that the guy had given me about 5 different in character reasons to take his head off(and I was getting fed up with his crap out of character too).
A lot of DMs have had experience with Chaotic Stupid and Stupid Evil characters. These are players who play CN or evil character, then turn around and use their alignment as an excuse to annoy the hell out of the rest of the party.
Ultimately it is a trust issue. There are some players I trust to play an evil or borderline evil character well without pissing off the rest of the group. There are other players I wouldn't.
I like the idea of a character who uses speak with dead, to find willing undead, who want to continue the fight from beyond the grave, raising only the undead who are aligned with his cause.
It's easy to see how a character like that could evolve naturally, with an oath to a dying friend that results in him reanimating his bones to continue the quest.
Before they go into battle, he asks his allies if they fall, do they want him to grant them rest, or grant them the ability to carry on.
I could see this working with a good character, and I could even see some paladins being in favor of it.
I could see this working with a good character, and I could even see some paladins being in favor of it.
-The problem is that it is objectively an evil act, even used to good ends. Knight Templar can condone that sort of thing, paladins cannot anymore than they can condone sacrificing children to cure a plague.
I could see this working with a good character, and I could even see some paladins being in favor of it.-The problem is that it is objectively an evil act, even used to good ends. Knight Templar can condone that sort of thing, paladins cannot anymore than they can condone sacrificing children to cure a plague.
Unless it's done by a Juju oracle, which continues to shatter alignment standards. The paladin might be creeped out, but she won't lose her horse and spells over it.