|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having seen that class, that is probably one of the few instances I'd actually allow a good necromancer in my group.Along the lines of Odraude's suggestions, folks looking for options that enable non-evil undead should really check out Kobold Quarterly's White Necromancer. It deals with undead in a very different way from the usual stereotype and focuses on working with and helping the dead rather than enslaving them.
It also shouldn't be too difficult for GMs to rewire it into a divine caster. :)
And, the Expanded White Necromancer from Kobold Press comes out tomorrow! :) Just sayin ;)
It contains the full class from Kobold Quarterly plus new spells, new feats and two white necromancer archetypes - the Necrotic Healer and the Grave-Bound.
If you are looking for a class that can create non-evil undead (and, in the case of Grave-Bound archetype, have one as a scaling companion) please be sure to watch for the Expanded White Necromancer up in the Products forum here on Paizo.com :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does that support the decision to write over an old archetype like there was something wrong with it though? Wouldn't that be the case for errata or a footnote or something? They had the 'alternative' section in the 3.5 books that offered different ways to view things or sometimes a variant.
The new JuJu is a new mystery, why does it have to replace the old one? Why not give it another name?
Because, from what I have read on these boards, canon is that in Golarion the creation of undead is an evil act, and the original mystery was an oversight which shouldn't have existed in the first place. This revision makes it possible to play a Juju oracle that fits the canon.
Today is a day full of stupid and unnecessary changes
It's like the devs of my favorite games are teaming up to stomp me in the nuts
Today is a day full of stupid and unnecessary changes
It's like the devs of my favorite games are teaming up to stomp me in the nuts
There were others?
Paizo has added a new set of rules/abilities with the same name as an older, similar set of rules/abilities before.This is surely just a mistake, and neither invalidates the other. I've added a footnote denoting source in my character sheet to avoid possible confusion.
*Total denial*
I think that the only way to promote the non-evil undead movement is to publish your own homebrew region with totally cool rules to build non-evil-friendly necro-empires (background, classes, organizations, magic items, spells...). Of course, you would do this in order to be fully compatible with Golarion Setting (but don't explicitly say it, not to piss off copyright paladins out there).
I am willing to pay for it. And judging for the Juju-love out there, a lot of people is too.
On the other hand, if I were the creative editor of Paizo, I wouldn't ever write such a setting/subsetting/companion/whatever and I would blatantly declare undead evil. Of course, I would be the responsible of creative direction of the world leading roleplaying publishing company. Kids are playing this stuff. How can I take that route?
From my point of view is a completely understandable policy.
There were others?Today is a day full of stupid and unnecessary changes
It's like the devs of my favorite games are teaming up to stomp me in the nuts
Different games
:sobs:
Today is a day full of stupid and unnecessary changes
It's like the devs of my favorite games are teaming up to stomp me in the nuts
I can't claim any insider knowledge of Paizo's affairs, but I have it on good authority that this was exactly the intent.
|
The staff at Paizo does not have the power or authority to ban anything from your home games. What they can do is ensure that material they put out matches the setting and reality that they attempt to create. If you decide to use material that they've decided doesn't jive with their product line, they're not going to kick down your door and take it away from you. Paizo driving for consistency in their products does not equate to Paizo dictating how you play your home games. And home games are all we're talking about here, because the old Juju Oracle was never legal in PFS play anyways.And you completely missed my point...
Didn't miss it, just don't think it has any validity.
Paizo can set whatever standards for their setting that they want. This doesn't somehow prevent you from using any material you want in your home games. If Paizo decides that they want Juju in their world but they don't want it working like it did in old material, that's their call to maintain the environment of their setting. Home games, which are the only games this change impacts in any way that can be construed as negative, are now and always have been the purview of the GM. What books and material he allows is all that matters. That's all that matters.
Let's look at this from a different perspective. My friends and I have G.I. Joe action figures. Hasbro recently put out a new line of G.I. Joes that includes a Snake Eyes in a white costume. OH no! Hasbro has ruined my favorite thing! Now the Sanke Eye's in my closet isn't wearing black anymore.... Wait, he is. Now replace Snake Eyes with Juju Oracle.
Because, from what I have read on these boards, canon is that in Golarion the creation of undead is an evil act, and the original mystery was an oversight which shouldn't have existed in the first place. This revision makes it possible to play a Juju oracle that fits the canon.How does that support the decision to write over an old archetype like there was something wrong with it though? Wouldn't that be the case for errata or a footnote or something? They had the 'alternative' section in the 3.5 books that offered different ways to view things or sometimes a variant.
The new JuJu is a new mystery, why does it have to replace the old one? Why not give it another name?
Okay, or you can create a spirit mystery or whatever and not say there's a new juju to replace the old one? It was already possible with a footnote or errata or a little section saying 'alternative' or 'in golarion/other setting'. You still don't have to take away from one source. The thing that gets me most about things like this is that there isn't an option involved, or at least one visible. Instead its 'this is how it is!" It feels like other options are 'bad' somehow you know?
Paizo can set whatever standards for their setting that they want. This doesn't somehow prevent you from using any material you want in your home games. If Paizo decides that they want Juju in their world but they don't want it working like it did in old material, that's their call to maintain the environment of their setting. Home games, which are the only games this change impacts in any way that can be construed as negative, are now and always have been the purview of the GM. What books and material he allows is all that matters. That's all that matters.
It does however infer that there's a right way and a wrong way though. If 'you can house rule it!' is a viable argument for everything, conversation and debate would be pretty short.
Another thing is you have situations like described in the very first post. New juju replaces the old juju in a homegame despite being an entirely different thing.
If you are looking for a class that can create non-evil undead (and, in the case of Grave-Bound archetype, have one as a scaling companion) please be sure to watch for the Expanded White Necromancer up in the Products forum here on Paizo.com :)
Ups, ninja's attack. I didn't see this while I was typing. I think that Ravindork had the perfect class. He needs not new classes. He just would like the fluff of Golarion to support (more of) his wishes.
|
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember this scene from 'Mulan'?
Hua Patriarch: "We must protect Mulan on her journey. The honour of the family must be preserved."
Hua Matriarch: "Agreed. We must send the Great Stone Dragon. It has always served the family well."
Hua Patriarch: <animates Mushu, the not-so-great stone dragon> "Mushu, we have a task for you. You must animate the Great Stone Dragon."
Mushu: "Wha-? Who said that? Waaaaagh! Undead! Save me! Get outa here! Oh, man, oh, man, how did these creepy freaks rise from the grave?! Take THAT! and THAT! I'll put you evil vermin back in your graves!"
<Mushu uses his hammer and gong to smash the family shrine to rubble, then uses his breath to burn the rubble to a smoking heap, thus putting everything right.>
<Mulan fails to fool the recruiting sergeant, and is sent home.>
<China falls to the barbarian invaders.>
The End.
OR-
Mulan is helped by the non-evil undead, who live in the family shrine. The barbarians are defeated. The Emperor praises her. Everyone lives happily ever after.
The End.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, stop bickering. Snorter already won the thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<stuff>
And again "you can ignore the rules" adds nothing to a rule discussion. It's like going into a discussion about cars and saying it doesn't matter because you can always take the subway. Or joining a discussion about pizza toppings and say they don't have to be tasty because you can eat hot-dog. Some people like cars and pizza, and want them to be good. The fact that they can choose to not drive or not eat pizza is pointless.
The problem with removing stuff is that whatever is removed won't have any support from PF or PF related products such as HeroLab. So if you liked the option that is banned, you lost something.
My point is not about a particular addition or removal from the game. My point is about how removing stuff has bigger consequences than adding stuff.
Instead of non-evil undead, let's say this is a change about Wizards. Let's say Paizo decides there are no Wizards in Golarion or something like that.
- If you don't like Wizards, you can ignore all Wizard-related stuff, and players who like them will have it and still receive Wizard-related products from Paizo. Everyone wins
- If you do like Wizards, but Paizo doesn't want them in the game, you can still use them, but there won't be any official Pathfinder products for them. Those who don't like Wizards don't care, but Wizard players got the short end of the stick.
Paizo has the right to do whatever they want with their product, I'm not disputing that. That doesn't mean every change they make is necessarily a good change. In the case of Juju Oracles, I'm just giving my reasons for thinking this particular change was a good one.
Remember this scene from 'Mulan'?
<China falls to the barbarian invaders.>
The End.
Yes, that was my favorite part of the movie as well.
Join me for some fermented milk, as we praise the Khan.
|
|
In the case of Juju Oracles, I'm just giving my reason for thinking this particular change was a good one.
I'm assuming this was a typo, because if you actually agree with them adding the new Juju Oracle, I'm very confused about how you went about making that point......
And there is a far step between "We're putting in a new archetype with the same name as an old one that we immediately acknowledged as a mistake and haven't supported in any way since so that people can actually use the Juju flavor within the bounds of what we feel is appropriate for our setting" and "No more Wizards".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Shadowcat, if you're "outraged" that someone changed something you liked in a game you play, you need to go outside and get some fresh air. It's a game. It's not racism, it's not sex crime laws, it's not murder, it's a game. A game rule changed. You're outraged? Give me a break.
A friend of mine's brother stepped on an anthill Saturday and died of an allergic reaction to the ant bites. She's distraught. You're merely put out. It's just a game.
And instead of addressing the issue, you're arguing semantics. Is there a purpose to this?
P.S. "Outraged" was your word, not mine and not the O.P.'s.
Yeah, I have to agree. I really like SKR and his design choices, and I do agree that we need to be polite about this debate. Hell if I ever met him in real life, I'd buy him a beer. But I agree that arguing semantics instead of addressing the substance of the topic at hand doesn't help the debate at all.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there anywhere online I can get the original oracle without having to buy the issue? Since, y'know, the PRDs will be "updating" and it won't be available there anymore.
As it appeared in an adventure path, not a core book, it's not in Paizo's PRD. Other sites (such as the PFSRD) have their own policies and I don't speak for them, but I doubt they're replace the first version with the second version.
Why?
Because nothing in the second version says "this updates are replaces the version of the juju mystery that appeared in another book."
Both are valid.
The second one is actually valid for PFS play (the first one was never allowed in PFS), so you actually have more options than before. Hey, perhaps that's why the change was made. Or perhaps it was made to make the juju concept actually be more like the real-world vodun religion that inspired it, instead of the intended-only-for-NPCs version in City of Seven Spears.
Nobody at Paizo is trying to take the first version away from your character. Nobody at Paizo cares that your character is using the first version. If your GM forcing you to change your character, that's a problem with your GM, not Paizo.
Sean, what is the meaning of RTMIR?
It's right there in my very first post in this thread:
Remember the most important rule (aka, RTMIR).
Today is a day full of stupid and unnecessary changes
It's like the devs of my favorite games are teaming up to stomp me in the nuts
To quote myself:
Posts like the OP contribute to the idea that outraged, inflammatory posts are the proper way to express concern about rules changes.
I'm still wondering what I did wrong in the OP. My OP was neither outraged nor inflammatory.
Overreacting =/= hostile or bad, it just means overreacting.
Perhaps it was the use of ALL CAPS in the post.
Perhaps it's because you're saying you're "distraught" over a new rules option with the same name as something "your character" is using.
Perhaps it's because you admit you know why the change was made, yet started a thread about it anyway.
Let's enter an alternate universe where you're a different person who doesn't go out of his way to become "distraught" over new game rules. Instead of what Actually-You posted, Different-You might have said something like this:
New version of juju mystery in Faiths and Philosophies?[/url]
I noticed there's a new version of the juju mystery in Faiths and Philosophies. Is this meant to replace the version in City of Seven Spears? Or are these additional options for that mystery?
I hope it's not a revision; I have a character with that mystery and I'm afraid that my GM will make me change the character to the new version. I like that my character can make non-evil undead (even though I know this goes against the design philosophy for Golarion).
Can I get some information from Paizo about what's going on?
I wish I lived in a world with PleasantFellow and people who post honest questions like he does, instead of using hyperbole to ask rhetorical questions loaded with disagreement. If only we lived in a world where people could be polite and reasonable with their disagreement instead of blowing everything out of proportion.
And instead of addressing the issue, you're arguing semantics. Is there a purpose to this?
The purpose is pointing that people need to get some perspective and context. It's just a game. Nobody insulted your honor, or hurt a member of your family, or injured you. If you're a mature adult, you can dislike something (or ask for clarification) without getting upset about it.
Thread closed. Take a breather. Get some perspective about what you're arguing about: a new PC option (in a player-oriented book) which has the same name as on older NPC option (in a GM-oriented book) that neither invalidates nor overrides the older option.
Get some perspective.