An official apeal on behalf of blood mages and necromancers...


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 1/5

Let's take this back to RP aspects of this world. Plenty of things eat humans if they can. Orcs do it because we're delicious and my priest of Pharasma doesn't hate them for it. (This does not mean he approves but he does understand.)

Its not the drinking of blood that is an affront to Pharasma. Its the drinking of the soul that goes along with it that is considered the heresy. And trust me, when you gain the powers of those whose blood you drink, you aren't just taking sustenance of the nutrient kind, but rather sustenance of the unholy kind.

Liberty's Edge

I suppose he is speaking of the Soul eater trait from Blood of fiends.
It require to be a Daemon spawn tiefling.

blood of fiends wrote:
Soul Eater: The act of murder allows you to draw vitality from fleeing souls. Whenever you use a coup de grace action to kill a creature (either by damage or through a failed Fortitude save), you gain a number of temporary hit points equal to half your character level (minimum 1) for 1 minute. These temporary hit points do not stack with multiple coups de grace.

Liberty's Edge

Thomas Graham wrote:


I'll be honest my Pharasman Cleric had a worry for a while, given one of the players in the area of her level was a Necromancer who enjoyed raising' allies' from the dead. For her that is a NASTY BAD thing. The Goddess doesn't APPROVE.

Isn't that prohibited as it increase the cost of bringing then back from the dead (you need resurrection to do that, reincarnate and raise dead don't work if you have been raised as an undead) and require the undead bodies to be destroyed to try to bring the characters back to life?


Jiggy wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
You actually think that dining etiquette makes a difference regarding the acceptability of drinking a person's blood?
Erm... yes? Doesn't apply with everything you do mind you, but the way you perform or act does happen to have an effect on public opinion.
And you believe that drinking people's blood is among the things for which manners make the difference, rather than being among the things that are still undesirable even when done politely?
Yeah, pretty much. I think there's a difference between ripping someones arm off and letting them bleed into your mouth lapping it up and drinking some collected blood in your spare time at home out of a cup. The first guy is a bit of an exhibitionist if you ask me.

Just because there's a difference between them doesn't mean one of them has to end up in the "acceptable" category. It is possible for two bad things to be very different but still both be bad.

There's a difference between laughing maniacally while shredding someone with a chainsaw and killing someone with a painless drug in their sleep, but that difference has no bearing on whether or not it was wrong. They can both be undesirable even if they're different.

Well, I did say that it doesn't work for everything. Murder is usually evil(unless its bad guys for society, natch). Its probably a pretty extreme. Can we talk about something nicer, like table manners? Its usually acceptable to eat, but its not acceptable to do so while speaking with your mouth open, refusing to use silverware, and banging against the table. That's more what I meant.

I also think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying I "Wish there was a way just to kindly stop 'unsavory' concepts(/action through discussion)". Not that the sole factor in determining if something is evil for making a mess and another isn't.

My first post may have been eaten by some imaginary blackhole forum monster... It looked so much nicer too.

Diego Rossi wrote:
I suppose he is speaking of the Soul eater trait from Blood of fiends.

Actually I didn't catch that one, I was talking about the soul drinker faction trait for Cheliax and the ability to summon Cacodaemon. Eating fleeing souls sounds pretty vicious too! I should note I'm not endorsing eating people or souls.

4/5

Diego Rossi wrote:

I suppose he is speaking of the Soul eater trait from Blood of fiends.

It require to be a Daemon spawn tiefling.

blood of fiends wrote:
Soul Eater: The act of murder allows you to draw vitality from fleeing souls. Whenever you use a coup de grace action to kill a creature (either by damage or through a failed Fortitude save), you gain a number of temporary hit points equal to half your character level (minimum 1) for 1 minute. These temporary hit points do not stack with multiple coups de grace.

No, there's actually a similar ability once a day as a trait from Cheliax faction in the Guide, and that's what he was talking about I think.

Dark Archive 2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Mister Pogrist, let me be honest with you. My love for necromancy is the same as my love for diabolism, which is to say, none at all. I have worked hard to do what I can to fight the devilish taint of my home nation through the society where I can. On the other hand, as a member of the society, I adhere to the principles of Explore, Report, Cooperate as the laws of the society. While I have often been the target of a voracious undead fiend's jaws in a darkened crypt, just as often I have had the aid of a responsible necromancer like yourself in the dark places of the world. I will sign no documents in support of black arts, but I will likewise not condemn you for using them. We all live very dangerous lives, and doing what we must to thrive in such an environment is only understandable."

OOC: I'm always of the opinion that more choice is better than less, and one of the reasons I love Pathfinder is that the dev team is giving you a lot of options to be the hero you want to be, even if it's an outside the box concept like good necromancer or vampire wizard that learns from his enemy's blood. Ergo, I'm usually against decisions for PFS that make the game more restrictive rather than less, with exceptions for things that can be abused. I'm sad I'll never get to be a PFS synthesist, for instance, but I see why it was removed as an option. I'm also sad my friend had to change his kitsune's whole character concept after the banning of vivisectionist in society. Curomancy and necromancy, however, don't seem abusive to the game and usually have drawbacks or expenses to their use to keep them in check. Necromancy especially even makes games a lot more interesting (recently read of a game where a necromancer animated the monster from the first fight and it became the party's mount for the rest for the scenario. A shame undead don't carry over passed the scenario you get them in, because the mental image was excellent).

I think the topic of this thread has obviously fallen away from the original point to a discussion on weather the spell blood transcription was unfairly banned. That shouldn't be the point of the discussion. I'd rather see it be about why there's such a stigma over necromancy spells and undead usage when there isn't as much of one over summoning demons and devils to do your bidding, when they're usually essentially the same level of evil.

Mr. Saxon, your archbishop doesn't like the blood drinking because it harms the soul. What would he say about Speak with Dead, potentially forcing a soul to reveal its life secrets before it can pass beyond, even if that information could save the lives of innocents? What about raising the body of an evil man as a zombie to prevent his easy resurrection and forcing that body to do good as penance for his life's bad works? Or the raising of a fallen beast to use as a weapon against evil, as beasts have no souls?(the second there I don't think actually works in the Pathfinder world, but it's a character concept I've been wanting to do for a while.)


Aaron Mayhew wrote:
I'm always of the opinion that more choice is better than less, and one of the reasons I love Pathfinder is that the dev team is giving you a lot of options to be the hero you want to be, even if it's an outside the box concept like good necromancer or vampire wizard that learns from his enemy's blood.

Actually by RAW I thought evil spells turn you evil and that drinking blood through dhampiryism was an evil act? Meaning you can't really be the hero you want to be, because you get turned evil by it. They also have made a lot of rulings to deny you something and reduce options, but that's probably another topic.

One nice thing about PFS is that evil spells don't turn you evil. When left ambiguous some GMs tend to pounce on you, and you can't get by with anything and you just have to ask 'what's the point?' depending on who you play with. Again, there are downsides to unambiguity, but probably another topic.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For me the issue is, as others have said, soul eating is fine. (Cheliax trait, tiefling trait, deathknell etc.) Blood drinking isn't.

I hear people talking about their clerics of Pharasma getting upset. Yeah, and? When we played a season four scenario, another player and I were bantering with each other. The two characters hated each other, but the player and I were cool. When the barbarian got petrified, Ksenia made the knowledge checks to restore her. Now in character, she'd have been happy to ship her back to Irrisen ("There's a place in Grandmother's rock garden that would be perfect for you.") But as a player I'd restore her PC.

Same thing about the cleric of Pharasma. IF Fester McNecromancer animates the dead, blowing up his undead with 'friendly fire' is fine. But if the personality conflict is too bad, you resolve it out of game. I won't play Mayim with some people, for example, because 'her' Calistrain antics disturb some people when they come out of a 6'4" fat guy.

As is, Ksenia can continue to talk about her doll collection back home, use her unicorn horn wand of cure light wounds and go all Wednesday Addams, but heaven forbid she do something creepy with a published Paizo product. Meanwhile the Chelaxians can go on eating souls...

(And, just to point out, Blood Transcription says absolutely nothing about mucking with the soul, And is Divination, not Necromancy. More Pharasman propaganda to prevent casters using the spell.)

Dark Archive 2/5

MrSin wrote:


Actually by RAW I thought evil spells turn you evil and that drinking blood through dhampiryism was an evil act? Meaning you can't really be the hero you want to be, because you get turned evil by it. They also have made a lot of rulings to deny you something and reduce options, but that's probably another topic.

One nice thing about PFS is that evil spells don't turn you evil. When left ambiguous some GMs tend to pounce on you, and you can't get by with anything and you just have to ask 'what's the point?' depending on who you play with. Again, there are downsides to unambiguity, but probably another topic.

So... evil spells both turn you evil and don't turn you evil? My understanding was that using evil spells to do evil things turned you evil, but using spells with the Evil descriptor wasn't inherantly evil, just restricted if you're, say, a good cleric.

And I know for PFS play a lot is restricted. I'm talking more about the Pathfinder game as a whole. But yeah, that's a topic for a whole other thread.

Liberty's Edge 2/5 *

Quick question: The level 10 ability of the bloatmage has net been banned out of existence has it? Im pretty sure blood drinking is involved and sorcerers. All this discussion of Blood transcription being banned now has me uneasy about the future of my prestige class.

4/5

Using evil spells by PFRPG standard, definitely turns you evil. I know Cheapy has a clarification to that effect by SKR in his huge list of clarifications. That said, much as it sometimes causes friction, PFS has a houserule to the contrary. I think I heard someone say that Mike told them that he would have ruled in line with SKR had he been aware of the clarification at the time he made his PFS ruling, but it's stood in PFS since there's always inertia and overturning leads to confusion which is its own opportunity cost.

Tread lightly though, folks--I think Mike likes to give people as many options to have fun with as possible, but sometimes threads like these (and the previous thread that made him ban blood transcription) back him into a corner where he has to use the banhammer. The next casualty might be Evil spells period. I personally wouldn't be devastated, but I know a lot of people who would.


Matthew Pittard wrote:
Quick question: The level 10 ability of the bloatmage has net been banned out of existence has it? Im pretty sure blood drinking is involved and sorcerers. All this discussion of Blood transcription being banned now has me uneasy about the future of my prestige class.

The ones that stab people will be banned for committing the crime of stabbinating maybe? That logic has been used before.

Aaron Mayhew wrote:
So... evil spells both turn you evil and don't turn you evil? My understanding was that using evil spells to do evil things turned you evil, but using spells with the Evil descriptor wasn't inherantly evil, just restricted if you're, say, a good cleric.

To clarify, using an evil spell is an evil act, evil acts supposedly eventually turn you evil, but because its entirely left up to GM's disgression(how many licks to the center of a tootsie pop), and many people don't agree with what is evil(infernal healing is evil, healing people am bad?), it leads to a little bit of controversy.

Luckily PFS just says evil spells aren't evil. I know a few guys who'd demand you atone after casting one raise dead or using infernal healing, and others who'd say 100 is just fine.

Dark Archive 2/5

Ah, thank you for the clarification, both of you.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

Mark Seifter wrote:
Using evil spells by PFRPG standard, definitely turns you evil.

I vehemently disagree with this position.

3/5

Mark Seifter wrote:
Using evil spells by PFRPG standard, definitely turns you evil.

Where did you get this ruling specifically? Can you send us a link?


Finlanderboy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Using evil spells by PFRPG standard, definitely turns you evil.
Where did you get this ruling specifically? Can you send us a link?

I think its Faiths of Purity that calls it out specifically. If you do a search there are a few spots where JJ says that it does, like here and here. and here's a post by SKR. I like the first link from JJ for explaining a few things.

Again though, whether this is how you should run it at your tables and whether its fun is a whole different ball game and because its left to GM digression expect table variance, explain expectations at session 0, and take the proper precautions you would in explaining any houserule. PFS is different mind you, but its always worth saying important things like that I think.

Liberty's Edge 2/5 *

Could we keep the non pfs discussion out of this part of the forum. People are going to see posts like some of the ones above and forget that the FAQ for PFS states:

Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?

Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.


MrSin wrote:


Personally I find people go for concepts and banning mechanics doesn't always stop them. For instance, there was a guy at the local store who had a raging barbarian who ate people owned then. Kindly asking him to stop got a good response and he'd cut down on the antics. Raging or throwing books at him usually just made things worse.

And yet...

MrSin wrote:


Because I can no longer drink the blood of my enemies in a tea and act like a high society character while gaining power in the process. Its all part of the image of gaining power while being composed and regal. Now I'm stuck with just regular tea and less of a dark pact or vampire feeling, vampirism being able to help create the image. I'm sure there are a number of other things, but ideas between people vary. I've never thought of using it in a disgusting manner myself.

Its also nifty for cheapening the price of extra spells if your a wizard/magus/witch who went into a PRC, but I believe you can nab spell books in a number of ways now to cheapen the price. If I remember correctly it used to be you couldn't borrow spell books off npcs, but I don't remember if that was misinformation or not.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
And yet...

Slightly different. In the case of a necromancer or the guy who I explained ate people, you could still do it. In the case of my character who wasn't disruptive in the slightest, he lost any reason to do it and just became creepy and won't do it anymore. I guess you can argue that I was being disruptive and he wasn't? Aesop was lost in translation somewhere maybe.

Scarab Sages 1/5

Please don't ban Infernal Healing just cause people are complaining about a lack of blood drinking options.

That spell is actually useful.

4/5

Michael Eshleman wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Using evil spells by PFRPG standard, definitely turns you evil.
I vehemently disagree with this position.

It's fine not to like it, and I can certainly see why some people don't, but it's hard to argue with the position that it's in the rules according to the devs, especially with the clarifications by Sean. I personally think the idea of a gradual corruption by the use of evil magic is an interesting storytelling device (for an example in modern TV that gives a great visual, consider the hints of blackness in Mary Maraget/Snow White's heart in Once Upon a Time after she gives in and uses dark magic to defeat the evil spellcaster who was threatening her family). She didn't suddenly turn into some kind of villain from that, but due to the fact that she was able to see the blackness in her heart in front of her eyes, it led to some angst and soul searching on her part.


Could be cool for storytelling, Could be an awful bomb to drop on a player. YMMV. There are a lot of depths to this, and this may not be the best place to discuss it.

So... PFS?

5/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is this the quote Mark is referring to?:

James Jacobs wrote:

As with all spells that have the [evil] descriptor, casting infernal healing is indeed an evil act. How many [evil] spells it takes for you to cast before your alignment shifts toward evil is entirely left up to your GM. Could be immediate, could be after you cast the spell 100 times, could be never. Could be that as long as you cast the spell for good purposes and do enough good acts to balance out your karma that it'll NEVER have an effect.

The [evil] descriptor is mostly in the game so we can have other effects that bolster or diminish spells that are [evil], and to limit certain off-theme spells from spellcasters with alignment requirements. So if you're a good-aligned cleric... no casting of infernal healing for you!

If so, the official language in the CRB about [evil] spells turning you evil was removed between 3.5 and PF. Second, JJ is never a rules source. And third, his post was around 3 years ago. Plus only the first sentence is black and white, followed by 3 time as many conditional modifiers.

I wouldn't call it a PFRPG standard myself.

4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Somebody was drinking the blood as a tea - which I thought was quirky (but that's a lot of tea to drink). What about making a black pudding?

...I wouldn't worry about contamination (as RAW the spell doesn't draw attention to this anyway).

Of course this wouldn't be in PFS, but I'd certainly don;t see an issue at home game. It's a way of making the spell a bit more palatable.


It's not "bad PCs" casting "bad spells" that muck up a game, its bad players doing dumb things. A paladin (or any less devout class, for that matter- say a barbarian) who plays ;like a bull in a china shop regardless of what the party wants to do ri=uins a game. In game morality needn't even be an issue! However, good players can reasonably work together and have a fun game.

Jiggy wrote:
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
I say leave X also, because the continued allowance of Y and Z under the premise given (being evil, icky, whatever) undermines said premise entirely.

So if I'm understanding you correctly...

Premise 1: X, Y and Z are all evil/unsavory/what have you.
Premise 2: X is banned in accordance with Premise 1.
Premise 3: Y and Z are legal in spite of Premise 1.
Premise 4: The disconnect between three things having different statuses of legality despite the same qualities is undesirable.
Conclusion: Legalize X so that all three can violate Premise 1 together.

That's an interesting logic chain.

Premise 1: X, Y and Z are all evil/unsavory/what have you.

Premise 2: X is banned in accordance with Premise 1.
Premise 3: Y and Z are legal in spite of Premise 1.
Premise 4: The disconnect between three things having different statuses of legality despite the same qualities is undesirable, although X IS legal in as many nations/factions as Y.
MY Conclusion: Legalize X and DISMISS Premise 1 altogether, as Premise 1 is irrelevant in light of X,Y, and Z.

Dark Archive 2/5

Eric Saxon wrote:
Pogrist the Great wrote:

Mr. Saxon: I understand emphatically your friends objection to the necromantic arts. It is clear that their flagrant and irresponsible use, coupled with the general lack of understanding as to how they work amongst the uninitiated, has driven the "witch hunt" thus far. I doubt very seriously your paladin friends would begrudge me the reanimation of my faithful hound, should he fall, or temporarily controlling wild undead to turn against their own kind, or any other use of necromancy that saves the party's skin. I have learned that when traveling, not only with well armed paladins of deities such as yours, but just amongst the uninitiated of any faith, discretion saves lives- MY OWN!*

*and it is this very RP experience that makes this character fun to play

IC: The Hierophant of Pharamsma, turns a cold glare at you: "You want to drink of the blood of the slain so that you may absorb their knowledge and thus interfere with their soul, leech. I will see you roast, defiler. I will do the last rights myself, so that you may not be brought back to life and go directly to judgement before my Mistress. And I assure you, there is no mercy from my goddess for your ilk."

OOC: No objection as far as mechanics. My lvl. 10 Archbishop of Pharasma, well, you heard him. And I don't want to play a Priest of Pharasma if I have to tolerate that level of necromancy. Because then it spoils my fun as a player and it would do the same for Paladin players. So, while I would not object in a homebrew game, in PFS I vote no based on the Role-Playing aspects of Golarion and Absalom in particular.

P.S. Its Geb not Nex that is a mecca of the undead hordes. And that kingdom is under strict quarantine, only to be entered by Holy Crusaders who are there to purge the undead host.

Now here's my question. What about those of us that don't find it fun to put up with paladins, clerics and the like that are basically built to try and severely limit what their fellow players try to do? It is very easy to make the same argument in reverse. Taking an overly good approach is every bit as damaging to the fun as an overly evil approach. The raising of the dead, while taboo, does not necessarily denote messing with the natural order. Nine times out of ten (100% of the time when animate dead is involved), there is no involvement of the soul. That aspect has already passed on, but the corporeal sack left behind can be used as a tool for the greater good in the hands of non-evil necromancers.

Then we have the in-character side of things. Sure, some of the faiths disagree with the use of undead as a tool. If they're going around ransacking graveyards and the like, I could definitely see that as an evil act in some circles. However, to raise a creature during a mission that you immediately free from your control afterward for its proper rest, at least to most of the characters (even a few paladins/clerics) I have seen, is considered tolerable enough not to warrant immediate punishment. It's all in how it's used.

1/5

Was it ever actually stated that the reason for the blood transcription ban is because of its evil flavor and not because of the wealth adjustment? That distinction might change the course of this thread a lot.

I have one character with the spell who actually hasn't used it since he got it (I say present tense only because I haven't taken it off his character sheet yet.) I personally could get on board with the ban if it was stated that it was part of efforts to keep a closer eye on gold. I don't think the difference in gold because of it is major (it is certainly less that the gold difference in playing a lot of season zero vs season five scenarios) but I can still understand the sentiment. Staff has been doing a lot to try and balance this aspect of the game lately.

If the issue is paladins don't like it........the problem sounds like paladins to me. But I agree that players should OOC resolve the issue kindly and in a civil manner, even if IC they despise each other.

If the ban is the result of removing evil flavor for onlookers, I am pretty opposed to it as many others are. Slippery slope, special pleading, yatta yatta yatta. This game has a lot of violence in it no matter which way you look at it, and a fair amount of innuendo at times also. Sipping tea with blood in it, as described earlier, sounds a lot more civil than your average GM description of battle.

If the concern is for the extent that people want to play up the act in a public place, some level of trust has to be given to players, they are making these decisions all the time regardless of mechanics involved. I know two women that in home games of PFS have super sluts for characters, but in public places with strangers around they put on the PG-13 personas. They understand the idea of appropriateness in public and it has nothing to do with mechanics. Conversely, I know a paladin that plays at our FLGS that normally can't speak over a couple of sentences without screaming obscenities. He does not know how to comport himself in public, he has been spoken to about this repeatedly, and it has nothing to do with mechanics.

TLDR: Trust the players, along with VOs for guidance, to act appropriately for their environment.


Sitri wrote:
If the issue is paladins don't like it........the problem sounds like paladins to me. But I agree that players should OOC resolve the issue kindly and in a civil manner, even if IC they despise each other.

If the issue is Pazio doesn't like it, is Pazio the problem?

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Pazio is a problem. That much is certain.


Nefreet wrote:
Pazio is a problem. That much is certain.

Of you! You know what I meant. My spellcheck doesn't fix that word for me.

1/5

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Sitri wrote:
If the issue is paladins don't like it........the problem sounds like paladins to me. But I agree that players should OOC resolve the issue kindly and in a civil manner, even if IC they despise each other.
If the issue is Pazio doesn't like it, is Pazio the problem?

...Well I did set up several if/then scenarios because I don't know what PFS admin does or doesn't like and why they may or may not like it (I can say with relative certainty that Paizo likes it fine.) It is this type of inability to think beyond unreasoning black and white that makes me despise paladins so.

Liberty's Edge 2/5 *

Actually I love the end to the debate the Paladin brings to the party. Ive seen sessions go round and round the debate hole with nothing getting resolved really until the Paladin finally says ' I wont support that. Its an evil thing'. THen its issue resolved. I like the clarity of decision that brings.

of course there are times when its not so cool. However getting back on topic of Blood Transcription I have reread the thread where someone mentioned that it should go. I dont agree with the reasoning (esp for my Bloatmage) but I live with it. I can chose to be irked by the original requestor though :)

Silver Crusade

Matthew Morris wrote:
For me the issue is, as others have said, soul eating is fine. (Cheliax trait, tiefling trait, deathknell etc.) Blood drinking isn't.

Heck, it doesn't even make sense for that to be a Cheliax trait. Devil emulating, sure. Daemon emulation? Not in the country fashioning itself after Hell.

If we're going to use Pharasman reactions to gauge things like Undead Master, the same should apply to the soul eaters, who are guaranteed to be higher on Pharasma's #%^*list than the necromancers.

I have an easier time dealing with paladins teaming up with vampires and ghouls than with souldrinkers. Again, if angels are teaming up with devils and demons to stop them...

Grand Lodge 1/5

The Beard wrote:

Now here's my question. What about those of us that don't find it fun to put up with paladins, clerics and the like that are basically built to try and severely limit what their fellow players try to do? It is very easy to make the same argument in reverse. Taking an overly good approach is every bit as damaging to the fun as an overly evil approach. The raising of the dead, while taboo, does not necessarily denote messing with the natural order. Nine times out of ten (100% of the time when animate dead is involved), there is no involvement of the soul. That aspect has already passed on, but the corporeal sack left behind can be used as a tool for the greater good in the hands of non-evil necromancers.

Then we have the in-character side of things. Sure, some of the faiths disagree with the use of undead as a tool. If they're going around ransacking graveyards and the like, I could definitely see that as an evil act in some circles. However, to raise a creature during a mission that you immediately free from your control afterward for its proper rest, at least to most of the characters (even a few paladins/clerics) I have seen, is considered tolerable enough not to warrant immediate punishment. It's all in how it's used.

ooc: Pharasma is a True Neutral goddess. Not a goody-goody deity. And according to her description any necromancy is considered 'messing with the natural order.' This isn't PFS rules, its Golarion Lore. The Sun Elixir, which extends the lifespan of the drinker is also considered heresy by Pharasma's church. I don't object to Wish spells or Sun Elixirs as a player, my PC does when I Role Play him.

What is being suggested is that the entire Lore of the Pathfinder world of Golarion be altered to satisfy the whims of a small minority. I'm sorry, every Fantasy setting will have its own lore, its own cultures, its own norms, its own values and its own limitations. These are set by the writers and developers of the setting and the campaign world.

I like playing in Golarion and rather enjoy its lore and I'm not looking to see it altered because someone thinks it limits their ability to play a macabre character. Its the same thing with Goblins and Kobolds and Orcs, we hear it all the time, "Why can't I play them as part of PFS? PFS sucks."

And for those who feel like that, there's always the homebrew option or maybe Mark and John are working on an Aspis Consortium option. You never know.

But me personally, I'm hopping we don't add any more macabre options, so I'm voting no. I like having some separation between black and white, instead of everything becoming gray.

Dark Archive 2/5

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

According to the rules, an [evil] spell is "categorized as" evil.

Would you argue that an [acid] spell isn't acid? That an [earth] spell isn't earth? That a [fear] spell isn't fear? That a [mind-affecting] spell isn't mind-affecting? If not, why are you arguing that an [evil] spell isn't evil?

Slightly off topic, this quote makes me chuckle a little bit. I know this wasn't his intention when he stated it, but it's implying that using an [evil] spell causes you to become more evil. My the same extension, an [acid] spell would make you more corrosive, a [fear] spell would make you more afraid, and a [mind-affecting] spell would make you... smarter? More mental? I don't know. Although I guess that's also technically true that you do become all these things when spells with descriptors are cast!

Anyway, just a funny thought. Back to the topic at hand.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Eric,

Where do you see that the Sun Elixer is a heresy to Pharasma? I don't remember that.

3/5

Eric Saxon wrote:
I like playing in Golarion and rather enjoy its lore and I'm not looking to see it altered because someone thinks it limits their ability to play a macabre character. Its the same thing with Goblins and Kobolds and Orcs, we hear it all the time, "Why can't I play them as part of PFS? PFS sucks."

These things being discussed all already exist within Golarion and possibly even within the Pathfinder Society in-game so I don't see what your point is. Remember that the character options open to players do not represent the actual demographics of the Pathfinders in-game. The Decemvirate did not suddenly up and fire all the undead-lord clerics when the banhammer came down on that. Likewise, Pathfinder agents across Golarion are still benefiting from the spell blood transcription even if none of the Pathfinder agents who are PCs can any more.

Quite frankly I have seen more disruption at tables from paladins and clerics of Pharasma and other fundamentalist and dogmatic characters than from characters doing "evil things". The problem is that these players almost invariably expect to get their way because "they are good" even when the character they are having a problem with is an equally valid character concept even within the circumscribed context of PFS. That is not acceptable.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Saint Caleth wrote:
Quite frankly I have seen more disruption at tables from paladins and clerics of Pharasma and other fundamentalist and dogmatic characters than from characters doing "evil things". The problem is that these players almost invariably expect to get their way because "they are good" even when the character they are having a problem with is an equally valid character concept even within the circumscribed context of PFS. That is not acceptable.

Sure, but what's that got to do with anything? My understanding is that things like blood transcription or the Undead Lord were not banned because people were using them to be disruptive.

3/5

Jiggy wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
Quite frankly I have seen more disruption at tables from paladins and clerics of Pharasma and other fundamentalist and dogmatic characters than from characters doing "evil things". The problem is that these players almost invariably expect to get their way because "they are good" even when the character they are having a problem with is an equally valid character concept even within the circumscribed context of PFS. That is not acceptable.
Sure, but what's that got to do with anything? My understanding is that things like blood transcription or the Undead Lord were not banned because people were using them to be disruptive.

I know that it was not why Mike objects to them, but I am arguing against Eric Saxon's objections to allowing darker options while retaining other potentially disruptive options that are "good"


Eric Saxon wrote:


What is being suggested is that the entire Lore of the Pathfinder world of Golarion be altered to satisfy the whims of a small minority. I'm sorry, every Fantasy setting will have its own lore, its own cultures, its own norms, its own values and its own limitations. These are set by the writers and developers of the setting and the campaign world.

That is most certainly NOT what I am suggesting. Read the Osirion lore and you'll find a long tradition of necromancy and undead (much to Pharasma's chagrin, I'm sure), complete with traits like this:

Attuned to the Ancestors:
GUIDE TO PATHFINDER SOCIETY ORGANIZED PLAY wrote:


Attuned to the Ancestors: You were raised to believe
that undead are nothing to fear—they are simply the
unliving remnants of your honored ancestors. Once per

day, you can surround yourself with an aura of unlife.
Unintelligent undead ignore you unless you take action
against them, per hide from undead. The protection lasts
1 round for every two character levels you possess (with
a minimum of 1 round). If you take any offensive action
against any undead, this effect immediately ends. This is
a supernatural ability.

The greatest necromancer in Golarion is from Osirion, Geb who founded an undead nation after his namesake. And then there are the Risen, spells like Boneshatter, Canopic Conversion, Tomb Legion, etc.-all necromantic spells of Osirion- or thanatopic or threnodic metamagic?

There is a long, deep tradition of necromancy in Osirion, once suppressed by Kellish invaders but clawing its way back to the surface of an independant and sovereign Osirion. Say again how I wish to alter Golarion lore for a minority? I only wish to ensure my ability to continue this tradition already well established in the lore, and bans based on one groups moral standard (not necessarily consistent throughout Golarion) sets a threatening precedent.

Dark Archive 2/5

Just an observation. A majority of barbarian tribes are considered chaotic evil. Clearly use of the rage mechanic should turn someone evil, going by the precedent being set in this thread.

Grand Lodge 1/5

Matthew Morris wrote:

Eric,

Where do you see that the Sun Elixer is a heresy to Pharasma? I don't remember that.

The novel "Death's Heretic" confirms this but I believe it was originally stated in the Echoes of Everwar series.

Grand Lodge 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

That is most certainly NOT what I am suggesting. Read the Osirion lore and you'll find a long tradition of necromancy and undead (much to Pharasma's chagrin, I'm sure), complete with traits like this:

** spoiler omitted **

The greatest necromancer in Golarion is from Osirion, Geb who founded an undead nation after his namesake. And then there are the Risen, spells like Boneshatter, Canopic Conversion, Tomb Legion, etc.-all necromantic spells of Osirion- or thanatopic or threnodic metamagic?

There is a long, deep tradition of necromancy in Osirion, once suppressed by Kellish invaders but clawing its way back to the surface of an independant and sovereign Osirion. Say again how I wish to alter Golarion lore for a minority? I only wish to ensure my ability to continue this tradition already well established in the lore, and bans based on one groups moral standard (not necessarily consistent throughout Golarion) sets a threatening precedent.

Geb is your example of the height of Necomantic achievement? Seriously? A place where human beings are kept in cattle pens, branded like livestock, waiting to be slaughtered when the time comes and a ghoul wants an afternoon snack or a vampire, needs to get his leech on? That Geb? A place where human male collaborators, impregnate human females, so that fresh cattle stock can be made available to Geb's ruling elite, in the future? And you want Pathfinder Society to provide the launch pad for more of the same? Maybe Andor or Galt or Druma could be the next Geb, you say. If only we would open our minds and allow more necromantic options to Pathfinders? That’s your argument for why you think necromancy should be expanded?

And you think that Pathfinder Society's, the 'good churches'' and the Pharasmin faith's aversion to necromancy is just us being 'fundementalist,' 'close-minded' and 'fanatical?' That's your argument?

WOW

The Exchange 3/5

Eric Saxon wrote:
IC: The Hierophant of Pharamsma, turns a cold glare at you: "You want to drink of the blood of the slain so that you may absorb their knowledge and thus interfere with their soul, leech. I will see you roast, defiler. I will do the last rights myself, so that you may not be brought back to life and go directly to judgement before my Mistress. And I assure you, there is no mercy from my goddess for your ilk."

The planetouched monk's frown deepens as the conversation continues to unfold.

"While I find the practices that are being proposed spiritually and morally concerning, I am equally disappointed and concerned by your aggressive posturing and unkind threats Mr. Ericson. The destruction of evil pales in comparison to enlightening wayward souls upon how to live their lives with greater balance and principal. Consider these words, and know my hope that your heart fills with compassion in place of your bloodthirst."

Venture-Captain Solail
Former Master of the Lantern Lodge
Monk 19

Grand Lodge 1/5

Master Solail wrote:
"While I find the practices that are being proposed spiritually and morally concerning, I am equally disappointed and concerned by your aggressive posturing and unkind threats Mr. Ericson. The destruction of evil pales in comparison to enlightening wayward souls upon how to live their lives with greater balance and principal. Consider these words, and know my hope that your heart fills with compassion in place of your bloodthirst."

Master Solail, you only care about your own soul and its enlightenment, an attitude I’m sure you think is the height of generosity. I concern myself with the well being of the flock. And like a good shepherd I am ready to do violence, when wolves come sniffing around. Perhaps it would be best if you’d travel to Geb and look at how living, breathing, sentient human beings are used before you speak to me of tolerating human leeches on a path to becoming inhuman monsters. (ooc: See: "You Only Die Twice." (scenario) or read one of the free short stories published about Geb, to get the real feel for the place. It’s essentially a human nation turned into a cattle ranch, so that the undead can eat their fill. It's a carnival of crimes against humanity.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:

Eric,

Where do you see that the Sun Elixer is a heresy to Pharasma? I don't remember that.

Any form of life extension is heresy to Pharasma. It's illustrated in the novel "Death's Heretic". The main protagonist himself is living beyond his years and according to one of Pharasma's inevitable servants, he's on their "list". However being the orderly beings they are, they won't act against him. (even though he's standing right in front of one) until they take care of all the others ahead of him on the list. (How long you've lived affects your placement as well.) They however won't tell him what his exact place on the list is, either.

Grand Lodge 1/5

Also, since he's an unwilling vassal of Pharasma (and wants to die) and he's essentially her 'bounty hunter' he gets a pass because he's the go to guy, when things need to be fixed or undead need to be cleansed.

Liberty's Edge

CRobledo wrote:

Is this the quote Mark is referring to?:

James Jacobs wrote:

As with all spells that have the [evil] descriptor, casting infernal healing is indeed an evil act. How many [evil] spells it takes for you to cast before your alignment shifts toward evil is entirely left up to your GM. Could be immediate, could be after you cast the spell 100 times, could be never. Could be that as long as you cast the spell for good purposes and do enough good acts to balance out your karma that it'll NEVER have an effect.

The [evil] descriptor is mostly in the game so we can have other effects that bolster or diminish spells that are [evil], and to limit certain off-theme spells from spellcasters with alignment requirements. So if you're a good-aligned cleric... no casting of infernal healing for you!

If so, the official language in the CRB about [evil] spells turning you evil was removed between 3.5 and PF. Second, JJ is never a rules source. And third, his post was around 3 years ago. Plus only the first sentence is black and white, followed by 3 time as many conditional modifiers.

I wouldn't call it a PFRPG standard myself.

Actually, JJ is the rule source for Golarion canon. And PFS follow Golarion canon.

5/5 *

Diego Rossi wrote:
Actually, JJ is the rule source for Golarion canon. And PFS follow Golarion canon.

For PFS specifically, we follow what the campaign leadership says, which in this case they have already ruled on this matter saying [evil] spells don't make you evil by just casting them.

For outside PFS, Golarion canon is but a part of PFRPG.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Thank you both, Eric, LazarX. It's been a while since I read DH, and was misremembering the Sun Elixer as "It prolongs things, but doesn't stop/reverse them, so we don't worry about it."

Again though, blood transcription doesn't mess with the soul of the deceased. It shouldn't be on Pharasma's radar. :-)

101 to 150 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / An official apeal on behalf of blood mages and necromancers... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.