Even if they shot up to the +10 ranges, I bet people would still play them.ECL? ECL was a cool idea, but it didn't work perfectly. ECL+1 pretty much killed a race being a caster on the spot, for instance. And the loss of HD wasn't too snazzy either. There was also a variant rule where you could buy your ECL off with xp, so you could better catch up with your group. People still played ECL +8 creatures(Vampires!), but they'd be made into glass cannons if anything and they really didn't do well in a group that wasn't all made of vampires for instance. 8 vampire wizard next to a 16 human wizard really would be hard to balance for. Would need to improve on the existing system. Pathfinder's just avoided using ECL altogether.
I remember I once played a character with a +10ish ECL, he had 5 HD, 15 DR and 15 Fast healing after he was done stacking templates. He also had no Con and a tremendous strength and natural armor. He was impossible to play though because he was hard to hurt, he healed back what you did hit him with, and if you did hurt him enough to actually put him in peril you may have just insta-gibbed him. DM complained it was getting impossible to put anything up against him.
Then maybe they should create a smaller book (companion, whatever) that deals with these kinda of things. "Templates of Golarion". Haha, that's funny!
Seriously, the lich? It includes "guidelines" for a PC going through the lichdom process.
Surely CR- base+2 doesn't really help PCs anyway.
Even if they shot up to the +10 ranges, I bet people would still play them.ECL? ECL was a cool idea, but it didn't work perfectly. ECL+1 pretty much killed a race being a caster on the spot, for instance. And the loss of HD wasn't too snazzy either. There was also a variant rule where you could buy your ECL off with xp, so you could better catch up with your group. People still played ECL +8 creatures(Vampires!), but they'd be made into glass cannons if anything and they really didn't do well in a group that wasn't all made of vampires for instance. 8 vampire wizard next to a 16 human wizard really would be hard to balance for. Would need to improve on the existing system. Pathfinder's just avoided using ECL altogether.
I remember I once played a character with a +10ish ECL, he had 5 HD, 15 DR and 15 Fast healing after he was done stacking templates. He also had no Con and a tremendous strength and natural armor. He was impossible to play though because he was hard to hurt, he healed back what you did hit him with, and if you did hurt him enough to actually put him in peril you may have just insta-gibbed him. DM complained it was getting impossible to put anything up against him.
Pathfinder's Rule from the PRD
ECL Adjustment = Monster CR+Template CR Adjustments
or ECL adjustment = Template CR adjustment
get one free level every 3 levels until you reach half your total ECL adjustment
so for example, lets say you have a CR 6 Nymph and Vampire is a CR+2 template
a Hypothetical CR6 Nymph would be a level 6 PC, adding the Vampire Template would make them CR8
in the cast of the Standard CR6 nymph, by their 9th class level, they will have 3 free class levels at ECL 15 and 12 class levels
if they were a Nymph Vampire, they could have 4 free class levels by their 12th class level and have an ECL of 20 by their 16th class level
it's also found in the original bestiary
the only CRs that count as class levels are CRs of 1 or higher that are not derived from class levels.
You've made a few assumptions there Umbriere. For example, there is nothing in the rules indicating how to handle templates on a PC.
Also, ECL as we knew it no longer exists.
Moving back a step, when I said put a spin on things, I meant make up something about undead that isn't entirely focused on evil. Like if you just filled it with energies and gave it the semblance of life. That's pretty much how it works, but I guess that's evil.
You've made a few assumptions there Umbriere. For example, there is nothing in the rules indicating how to handle templates on a PC.
Also, ECL as we knew it no longer exists.
Templates are added to the base creature
so a template's CR, is added as an additional part of the monster's CR.
the PRD uses CR as a substitute for ECL for handling Templates on a PC, under the monsters as PCs rule i link
a monstrous template is not much different from a monstrous race.
clearly a creature with a CR adjustment is any creature with a CR of +1 before applying class levels, or in the case of OHD races, CR1 with merely a level of a single NPC class.
I haven't read the 7 pages after the first page, so I'm sorry if I'm derailing a derailing (I doubt I am though).
I'm just going to leave this here.
For a while I was thinking about making a neutral or good necromancer. A character raised in the family task of protecting his town. They are necromancers, but instead of just taking dead bodies by force, they ask the living for written permission (ala a signed contract of sorts) if they may use their body (and perhaps their soul) to protect the town in the future if the need arises. Now, occasionally, he might use the evil dead as some of his animated corpses as punishment (something already mentioned), but primarily he asks good people to keep protecting others after death. If they decline, he won't do it to them.
Might make it more difficult to do gameplay wise (DM forcing one to ask people for their corpses) but I feel like the flavor would be fun to play. This character would probably be a Juju Oracle, if the DM allowed the pre-FAQ'd rulings that the zombies match your alignment.
And this seals the arguments. :)
I had suspected that most people who were arguing for undead not to be evil just wanted the powers without any downsides.
If you see someone say they want to play a vampire and immediately assume they want a character 'without any downsides', I suggest you go try looking at the vampire template again.
So, your argument against raising undead is "the body's original soul doesn't want it"?Well, I'd love to be an undead creature. Powers, pretty much unlimited life, etc.
This means that undead-raising is okay. Because I want to.---------------------------
Undead=unnatural. Unnatural? Auto-evil.
This needs to change.
In my opinion, of course.
i want to be able to play a neutral or even good necromancer one daybut i can't because of the law that "all undead are evil."
Hmm, nah, no clue where I got that idea...
Despite my necromantic interests I have never nor will I ever believe that the creation of undead or use of undead is a definite evil act. If thats what you want in your campaign world then thats ok but I dont buy into that philosophy.
Necromancy is the school of magic that governs life and death. Paizo's books, and really lets be honest all 3.5 books I can think of, have always delt with the latter and not the former. I remember back in the old days of second edition when there were spells that would vitalize your party and allow for what many called "white necromancy" but in recent years thats just fallen by the wayside. With the various paizo books making a white necromancer that is a strong member of the party is incredibly difficult
That said, lets think about the reasons why people think that the raising and use of undead is evil. What I always hear tends to rely on our (US or European) society as a basis. In other societies funerary rites are very different. I remember hearing stories of Christians being disgusted at ancient egyptian mummification practices because they saw the removal of organs as desecration of the body. Likewise certain groups in the south pacific (the ones I can think of are primarily the phillipenes) have practiced cannibilism as part of their funerary rites (similar to paizo's lizardfolk). In these socities funerary practices outside those we would use (and frankly see as desecration of the body) are common place and even desirable. In these cases what is really the good way to act. To let people continue with their own religious and/or philosophical beliefs or to impose the own characters societal teachings on strangers? In my opinion the answer is the former
Going further into societal tendancies what happens when a society chooses to create undead and use them as part of their funerary practices? Undead live forever and there are many stories told of the "honored dead" in different societies, why not honored dead that still walk the earth and serve the people? Athiests often see death as just oblivion, they tend to believe there is nothing beyond death so could see why an athiest society choose a kind of immortal service then face that oblivion. In such a society what is the right thing to do? To impose the individuals beliefs on the beliefs of an entire society? To let them continue with their funerary rites as they always have (as long as the individual is willing)?
Playing good isnt easy when a character is taken outside of their own society but IMO its more rewarding. That said, its these cases where I believe the good of undead can shine. If we keep things in european societies then yes its seen as evil in every context but its not wholly and unequivically evil because in societies besides them its seen in a very different light.
One issue with the "mindless undead are just animated corpses and corpses are just objects" is that in that case, skeletons and zombies should be constructs, not undead to begin with. And animate dead should be a transmutation spell like animate object.
And this seals the arguments. :)
I had suspected that most people who were arguing for undead not to be evil just wanted the powers without any downsides.
If you see someone say they want to play a vampire and immediately assume they want a character 'without any downsides', I suggest you go try looking at the vampire template again.
So, your argument against raising undead is "the body's original soul doesn't want it"?Well, I'd love to be an undead creature. Powers, pretty much unlimited life, etc.
This means that undead-raising is okay. Because I want to.---------------------------
Undead=unnatural. Unnatural? Auto-evil.
This needs to change.
In my opinion, of course.
Hmm, nah, no clue where I got that idea...
i want to be able to play a neutral or even good necromancer one daybut i can't because of the law that "all undead are evil."
First, I don't like when people quote me wrong in context.
I merely meant that having undead be real, out here on Earth, would be pretty cool, and I would even like a chance to become one after I die, if possible.
One issue with the "mindless undead are just animated corpses and corpses are just objects" is that in that case, skeletons and zombies should be constructs, not undead to begin with. And animate dead should be a transmutation spell like animate object.
There's always the option of using Animate Object on a corpse instead to creat a servant. You could animate that pile of bones into a nightmarish semblance of its former self with no problems...
Hmm....well, there's my next character concept.
One issue with the "mindless undead are just animated corpses and corpses are just objects" is that in that case, skeletons and zombies should be constructs, not undead to begin with. And animate dead should be a transmutation spell like animate object.
Follow this line of thought, though, and you almost entirely destroy the entire school of Necromancy. For example:
•Fear effects (such as the Cause Fear spell) should be Enchantment.
•Negative Energy spells (Harm, Inflict line, etc.) should be Evocation.
•Anything related to mindless undead, as well as physical debuffs (such as the Weaken spell) should be Transmutation.
There is even an argument to be made that willful undead should be Conjuration, though personally I think "soul manipulation" is unique enough to warrant staying in Necromancy (creating vamps, soul jar, etc).
It, however, would hardly be enough spells to warrant an entire school. =P
One issue with the "mindless undead are just animated corpses and corpses are just objects" is that in that case, skeletons and zombies should be constructs, not undead to begin with. And animate dead should be a transmutation spell like animate object.Follow this line of thought, though, and you almost entirely destroy the entire school of Necromancy. For example:
•Fear effects (such as the Cause Fear spell) should be Enchantment.
•Negative Energy spells (Harm, Inflict line, etc.) should be Evocation.
•Anything related to mindless undead, as well as physical debuffs (such as the Weaken spell) should be Transmutation.There is even an argument to be made that willful undead should be Conjuration, though personally I think "soul manipulation" is unique enough to warrant staying in Necromancy (creating vamps, soul jar, etc).
It, however, would hardly be enough spells to warrant an entire school. =P
Well, the point about it being transmutation rather than necromancy was more of a side note, the important part is that if skeletons are animated objects then they should follow the rules for animated objects. Since they do not, they are clearly NOT simply animated objects - there's something more to it.
Rather something less to it: Animate Dead is a 3rd level spell while Animate Object is 6th. Animate Object is free if temporary or costs only the price of Permanency, which doesn't require a suspicious material component that is often difficult to obtain beyond mere issues of cost, just plain, common, readily available in ludicrously large amounts to adventurers gold. Animate Object can animate things a lot tougher than mere bone. Animate Object is just plain better as befits a spell three levels higher.
I'm not talking about it in a mechanical sense. In-world, a skeleton is governed by completely different rules than an animated object that happens to be an animated corpse.
This indicates that a skeleton is NOT simply "an animated object" and using that as an argument for why casting it shouldn't be evil doesn't hold. If it was simply animated bones, then it would have these stats.
It doesn't, so clearly there's other things going on, and that argument doesn't really hold water.
Whether it SHOULD be is another matter. I wouldn't be against a sort of "lesser animated object" spell that was similar to animate dead but that just animated the bones. Animate dead clearly does other things than animate the bones, since it doesn't have the same stats as animated bones have.
i want to be able to play a neutral or even good necromancer one daybut i can't because of the law that "all undead are evil."
recycling a corpse is no more evil than throwing a damned fireball, in fact, i'd rate it less evil than the damned fireball
because negative energy itself, is a perfectly neutral source
in fact, there is no official published rule that necromancers are hated worldwide, just an assumption many of us make based on the steriotypical use of undeath by such characters as the damned lich king, and the like.
if i get a template, i am willing to work for that template. just don't try to hijack my several weeks of hard work by making that character nothing more than an NPC to harm the party with.
You know that Necromancers CAN do other things besides creating shambling monstrosities of the living?
The assumptions exist for a reason. Just like the characters we play, they're based on multi-cultural very long lived classic tropes.
No there isn't a published rule that Necromancers are hated worldwide. There doesn't need to be one. It just follows from common sense that you can't expect to walk into town with an undead corpse and expect to be treated like the pillar of society, any more than any adventurer walking into town with something that looks, acts like a known monster. Now certain worlds and locations WILL modify this base rule. In Geb, it's the living that have second or worse class status. In Eberron there is one country where Necromancers make their living maintaining the undead work and army force.
thing is, "Undead are a sin" only holds water in a European flavored society. there are many societies where there was an honored life after death, and many of those societies, would honor undead, as honoring life after death. Vikings honored the Valkyries, the Egyptians and Mayans honored their mummified kings, the Filipino consumed their dead to feed the living, the Native Americans used every part they could of what they killed, and if they could hypothetically reanimate a pile of bones as an undead servant, they hypothetically would, and if they did, north america would be run by the various native tribes, not by European immigrants, their forced servitors of various races, and their descendants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animate dead clearly does other things than animate the bones, since it doesn't have the same stats as animated bones have.
Oddly enough, some animated bones have the same racial HD as blood sucking pale skinned humanoids, walking mindless corpses, a floating head, a guy with his soul in a gem and a regenerating corpse, a living shadow, or a ghost. One of the weirder things is that they are all immune to mind control, even if they have a mind of their own and a soul in their own corpse. Also, fly as an inclass skill, even if they have no way(or reason) to fly. Racial HD are weird sometimes.
Animate dead clearly does other things than animate the bones, since it doesn't have the same stats as animated bones have.Oddly enough, some animated bones have the same racial HD as blood sucking pale skinned humanoids, walking mindless corpses, a floating head, a guy with his soul in a gem and a regenerating corpse, a living shadow, or a ghost. One of the weirder things is that they are all immune to mind control, even if they have a mind of their own and a soul in their own corpse. Also, fly as an inclass skill, even if they have no way(or reason) to fly. Racial HD are weird sometimes.
"a guy with his soul in a gem and a regenerating corpse"....simplest explanation of a Lich ever.
"a guy with his soul in a gem and a regenerating corpse"....simplest explanation of a Lich ever.Animate dead clearly does other things than animate the bones, since it doesn't have the same stats as animated bones have.Oddly enough, some animated bones have the same racial HD as blood sucking pale skinned humanoids, walking mindless corpses, a floating head, a guy with his soul in a gem and a regenerating corpse, a living shadow, or a ghost. One of the weirder things is that they are all immune to mind control, even if they have a mind of their own and a soul in their own corpse. Also, fly as an inclass skill, even if they have no way(or reason) to fly. Racial HD are weird sometimes.
so i can make an attractive female lich and call her a puella magi?
Kyubei is the secret to attractive lichdom.
Untrue. Here are some samples from Asia. A couple of these are in the Paizo Vampire book.
Unrelated to asia, Norse had Draugr, which were several types of angry dead themselves. Anyways, not every culture has 'undead always evil', and neither do all stories. Another thing to note is that DnD does deviate from the norm and have original concepts now and then, and isn't solely based on preexisting ideas.
What is it about the undead that makes them evil?Is author appeal a viable answer?Absolutely. Ciretose mentioned a game earlier where the PCs didn't want to deal with the ethical complexities of what they were doing.
Some games are supposed to be simple beat-em-up fun. Others are supposed to explore human nature. Both are enjoyable as long as everyone is on the same page.
It just depends on what a group wants out of a particular game.
Yes, but the game isn't set up with traveling murder hobo as the default.
If you want to do that in your home game, great. Have fun.
But the company bread and butter is the setting. And the murder hobo setting doesn't take a lot of effort to pull off...
Huh, I was under the impression that Golarion rewards racist murder hobos, since its perfectly okay to go around brutally slaughtering or Dominating (read: enslaving) free-willed mortals based on their race (dragons, mummies, orcs, goblins)...
sounds a heck of a lot like a murder hobo setting to me.I am totally going to refer to player characters as "murder hobos" from now on. To a kobold, that's exactly what they are.
EDIT: Actually, to a kobold, they're giant murder hobos with super-strength.
a lot of them are orphaned at a young age to cut themselves off from family ties
a lot of them make up excuses to justify being murder hobos like "A dragon ate my mother in front of me! i shall kill every last dragon, kobold, sorcerer, and lizardfolk i can!" or "an orc killed my twin brother. not a single Orc, Gnoll, Gobloinoid, Giant, nor other savage creature is allowed to live" as a shallow excuse to justify slaughtering legions of free willed and intelligent mortals based on their race, and they always have a friend or relative to avenge.
if killing niether orcs nor dragons, it would be "a Naga ate Uncle Max, all Nagas, Yuan Ti, Serpentfolk, Snakes, and other Snake People deserve nothing more than the most painful of deaths."
or "an Illithid ate Cousin Abbigail, no aberration shall be allowed to survive, man, woman, child, or old."
I've always been a fan of necromancy and necromancers, both in the classic "always evil" sense and in non-traditional "grey or white" roles. I feel like the classic themes have been thoroughly explored, which means when I am in games I prefer non-traditional necromancers just because there are still a lot of interesting story themes. On these boards I'm playing 4 different necromancers, all with extremely different methods and philosophies. Here's a breakdown-
Ragnar Deathspeaker: A barbarian from a lost time, trapped among the spirits of his ancestors for hundreds of years. He's finally free and trying to make his way in the world. His ghostly ancestors follow him and offer advice and aid. He has learned how to put their spirits into "empty vessels" for a time. Spirits of dead PCs and other friends have slowly joined the ranks of his ghostly army. He doesn't realize it, but he may be the mortal incarnation of an Odin-like death-god, destined to lead the legions of the fallen in the Last Battle.
John Rhasp: An amnesiac priest of the Dark Tapestry who is generally happy and always a little unhinged. He's a happy-go-lucky fun loving sailor who doesn't really seem to understand where the line between alive and dead is. He has little sense of danger or his own mortality and doesn't hold grudges against people who try to kill him. He just kills them back and then wakes them back up again as friends.
Master Grey: The New Runelord of Charity. He believes life should be lived to the fullest, full of joy and free of toil. Then, once the soul has moved on, the body that is left behind becomes the property of the community and exists to serve. He believes that self-willed undead should only ever be made from the most selfless people, because the undead should only exist to serve the living. He's essentially a Communist, thoroughly devoted to the service and betterment of those living in New Thassilon.
Xanos: An ancient philosopher who sees the endless cycle of life, death and rebirth as the most insidious form of slavery, existing only to churn out soldiers and currency (in the form of souls) for the Gods' eternal struggle. He views Undeath as the beginnings of a way to cast off those chains, but because most undead still need to feed, he still sees it as casting off one kind of slavery for another. His eventual goal is to discover how to turn himself into a bodiless, eternal creature of pure will. Until then, he experiments and focuses on destroying the kingdom of Talengarde (because they won't just leave him alone).
Someone, quick, start another argument!
Topic: Penguins are ugly vermin. You may begin.
Anyways... I've also got a few necromancers. Usually I go for the 'is a tool and unrelated to my cause' approach. All of them are evil though so... not exactly going to argue for your goodness by using any of them. To be fair, you shouldn't take advice on how to be good from a guy named MrSin, probably.
If all undead are completely, irrevocably even, evil, then why does the paladin's (pretty much the symbol of "GOOD") Oath against Undeath state:
"While a few paladins who take this oath recognize that NOT ALL UNDEAD ARE EVIL, others are quite willing to purge neutral and good undead along with all the evil ones." ?
It not only admits undead might be non-evil (read: neutral), it explicitly states that there are good undead that DO, in fact, exist.
Just sayin'.
I'm a moral nihilist. Your name is irrelevant :P
Really? I lean on the side of pragmatisms myself. The alignment system doesn't like pragmatists and nihilist that much, with objective/absolute morality and what not butting heads with the idea that circumstances change the results. The people you play with determine a lot about how alignment is handled at the table.
If all undead are completely, irrevocably even, evil, then why does the paladin's (pretty much the symbol of "GOOD") Oath against Undeath state:
"While a few paladins who take this oath recognize that NOT ALL UNDEAD ARE EVIL, others are quite willing to purge neutral and good undead along with all the evil ones." ?
Because paladins are bad at being good guys I guess?
As far as fitting your necromancer into a game with lots of good characters, I think it's been pretty well covered that a lot will depend on your setting, which will depend on your GM. So you should first talk to your GM about it. If he falls into the "undead are always evil" camp then you are probably out of luck. If he allows it then you can start work on it. But you probably want to talk to your fellow players first before just springing the idea on them. See how it might work out.
I see the PC necromancer as ultimately a pragmatist. He is fighting the forces of his enemies with whatever tools he has at hand, and with his particular talents this amounts to raising an army of the dead. He particularly likes to use the bodies of his enemies as this amounts to "turning his enemy's strengths against him."
If your party won't go for that, and they might not, since it is still "icky", may I suggest making a Summoner with an undead theme instead? You can design an Eidolon so that it looks like an undead and even has undead traits. You could also see if your GM will go for "reskinning" your summoned creatures so they seem to be (or perhaps are) undead creatures. You are then still playing a class that lets you have lots of pets but shies away from the actual issue of animating corpses.
Peet
As far as fitting your necromancer into a game with lots of good characters, I think it's been pretty well covered that a lot will depend on your setting, which will depend on your GM. So you should first talk to your GM about it. If he falls into the "undead are always evil" camp then you are probably out of luck. If he allows it then you can start work on it. But you probably want to talk to your fellow players first before just springing the idea on them. See how it might work out.
I see the PC necromancer as ultimately a pragmatist. He is fighting the forces of his enemies with whatever tools he has at hand, and with his particular talents this amounts to raising an army of the dead. He particularly likes to use the bodies of his enemies as this amounts to "turning his enemy's strengths against him."
If your party won't go for that, and they might not, since it is still "icky", may I suggest making a Summoner with an undead theme instead? You can design an Eidolon so that it looks like an undead and even has undead traits. You could also see if your GM will go for "reskinning" your summoned creatures so they seem to be (or perhaps are) undead creatures. You are then still playing a class that lets you have lots of pets but shies away from the actual issue of animating corpses.
Peet
Necromancet-Summoner....interesting....
And there's this, also from Ultimate Magic:
Skeleton Summoner
The walking dead respond to your call.Prerequisites: Spell Focus (necromancy), ability to cast summon monster.
Benefit: Add "human skeleton" to the list of creatures you can summon with summon monster I and "human skeletal champion" to the list of creatures you can summon with summon monster III. Once per day, when you cast summon monster, you may summon a skeletal version of one of the creatures on that spell's summoning list (apply the skeleton template to that creature to create this monster).
Well, the point about it being transmutation rather than necromancy was more of a side note, the important part is that if skeletons are animated objects then they should follow the rules for animated objects. Since they do not, they are clearly NOT simply animated objects - there's something more to it.
The only problem with this approach is that, if it is true, that "something else" has never been defined, ever.
It is left entirely up to the GM and players to decide such things... Except alignment, undead always have to be evil in Golarion. And in Pathfinder apparently, regardless of what world you play in.And that, coupled with the fact that such an argument causes problems with internal consistency, is what the argument is about.
...As far as fitting your necromancer into a game with lots of good characters, I think it's been pretty well covered that a lot will depend on your setting, which will depend on your GM. So you should first talk to your GM about it. If he falls into the "undead are always evil" camp then you are probably out of luck. If he allows it then you can start work on it. But you probably want to talk to your fellow players first before just springing the idea on them. See how it might work out.
I see the PC necromancer as ultimately a pragmatist. He is fighting the forces of his enemies with whatever tools he has at hand, and with his particular talents this amounts to raising an army of the dead. He particularly likes to use the bodies of his enemies as this amounts to "turning his enemy's strengths against him."
If your party won't go for that, and they might not, since it is still "icky", may I suggest making a Summoner with an undead theme instead? You can design an Eidolon so that it looks like an undead and even has undead traits. You could also see if your GM will go for "reskinning" your summoned creatures so they seem to be (or perhaps are) undead creatures. You are then still playing a class that lets you have lots of pets but shies away from the actual issue of animating corpses.
Peet
Necromancet-Summoner....interesting....
And there's this, also from Ultimate Magic:
Skeleton Summoner
The walking dead respond to your call.Prerequisites: Spell Focus (necromancy), ability to cast summon monster.
Benefit: Add "human skeleton" to the list of creatures you can summon with summon monster I and "human skeletal champion" to the list of creatures you can summon with summon monster III. Once per day, when you cast summon monster, you may summon a skeletal version of one of the creatures on that spell's summoning list (apply the skeleton template to that creature to create this monster).
No, you're reading it wrong.
You add human skeleton to SM1, and skeletal champion to SM3.The 1/day thing lets you apply the "Skeletal" template to any one creature from the summon list.
Skeletal Tyrannosaurus? Yes, please!
I don't know. Summoning things with DR 5, even if it's easy to bypass, is no joke at level 1.
The skeletal champion isn't something to laugh at either.
Especially when combined with one (or more, for brood masters or whatever) eidolons.
Yeah, it's kinda bad as it scales up, but still. It gives your summons a bunch of immunities, and some new claw attacks.
Why are you so against it?
Why are you so against it?
To be fair, once per day is pretty crappy, and adding the skeletal template is potentially a lot of math if you didn't premake the character sheet for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Animating the dead isn't evil as far as i'm concerned. it's economy friendly. it's called recycling. it is also humane, if a bit unnatural. but it bestows no harm to the natural enviroment.
i admit, my view of morality is very different from most fellow americans, i don't see sexuality as shameful either, if you are truly proud of yourself, show your pride, just don't be excessive about it.
i'm fine with many concepts our puritan country doesn't approve of, Same Sex Marriage, use of Questionable medications to treat dangerous or irksome symptoms, female presidents, presidents of alternative races or age categories, and a variety of other things, such as alternative systems of belief, or alternative traditions, all i ask is you don't push your ways on the unwilling, and that all ways be legal.
i wouldn't personally eat another human, but i have no issues with others being cannibals, as long as they don't force me to join them with their meal, and as long as they aren't out murdering for their food when they could just rob a few graves instead.
i also have no issues with vampires drinking blood, as long as they gain permission first, whether willingly, or by means of transaction. i take so many pills that my blood would likely be toxic to most vampires, plus combined with the amount of garlic i consume daily, i'm safe from vampiric raids. at the same time, the partner offering consent, has to be informed of every consequence to their consent.
really, morality is nothing more than a human construct, crafted from a series of restrictions to make ourselves less "Barbaric." truth is, humans are pretty darn barbaric, we just have fancier and flashier yet drastically more damaging weapons. instead of sieging castles, we can siege planets, the only thing we lack is the transportation. we are almost capable of becoming the otherworldly invaders from stories we once feared.
a portal to the first world could open and fairies could conquer our planet, and i would have no qualms, because we have yet, merely another new set of tyrannical overlords. we just went from human tyrants to fairy tyrants, i would be glad of that, because at least it would give us a reason to help each other. by forging cold iron bullets, and exploding pixie brains.
If you check the summon monster list on PFSRD "Bloody Human Skeleton" is listed as an alternate summonable creature.
I usually just show that to my GM and ask if it's ok for my character to use. I've yet to find one that said no.
Then I have a thematically appropriate summon at low levels, before I can make my own undead, and I don't have to light a feat on fire to do it.
Animating the dead isn't evil as far as i'm concerned. it's economy friendly. it's called recycling. it is also humane, if a bit unnatural. but it bestows no harm to the natural enviroment.
All of this talk about black and white necromancers, we sometimes forget about the third kind. The Green Necromancer.
when they could just rob a few graves instead.
Gross. Corpses in graves have gone through a few dozen processes that makes them less than edible. I wouldn't even reanimate those things, not much natural left in them as far as I'm concerned.
by forging cold iron bullets, and exploding pixie brains
Will the advent of our pixie overlords change our views of morality and our look at death and the afterlife? Maybe zombies will save the day... then maybe eat the leftovers. They tend to do that sometimes. Personally, I intend to enjoy the fae overlords rule and the madness that comes with it, maybe they'll take a few breaks from overseering to play dnd.
I have a lot of trouble staying serious in a conversation involving pixie overlords. In other news... Did you ever get anywhere with your group Nickleback?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
by forging cold iron bullets, and exploding pixie brainsWill the advent of our pixie overlords change our views of morality and our look at death and the afterlife? Maybe zombies will save the day... then maybe eat the leftovers. They tend to do that sometimes. Personally, I intend to enjoy the fae overlords rule and the madness that comes with it, maybe they'll take a few breaks from overseering to play dnd.
I have a lot of trouble staying serious in a conversation involving pixie overlords. In other news... Did you ever get anywhere with your group Nickleback?
i welcome the pixie overlords too, but some humans would wish to explode their brains with cold iron bullets, i like the fact madness would become the new norm, my insanity would make me a low ranking ambassador for our small winged rulers for speaking to the lowly humans they conquered. i would be one of the few who serve the pixie overlords. there might be people with cold iron bullets, who cares, i'd be too insane to care. i'd have so many nymph wives, it would be a blessing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you so against it?To be fair, once per day is pretty crappy, and adding the skeletal template is potentially a lot of math if you didn't premake the character sheet for it.
You use summoning without doing your homework before game?
That's one of those, "Come back when you shower" things in my opinion, if you are summoning have the states ready already.