|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hail, friends. My name is Pogrist the Great, necromancer in service and study of Osirion. It has come to my attention that many of the uninitiated masses object to the use of necromancy and blood magic, seeing it as evil. This would come as no surprise, were we not living in an advanced age. I ask that we necromancers receive the same rights and immunities as the Chelaxians do.
Case in point- spells with the "evil" descriptor. Many necromancy spells that animate or create undead creatures bear this stigma, yet so do many others:
When you use a summoning spell to summon a creature with an alignment or elemental subtype, it is a spell of that type. Creatures on Table: Summon Monster marked with an "*" are summoned with the celestial template, if you are good, and the fiendish template, if you are evil. If you are neutral, you may choose which template to apply to the creature.
Summoning devils is an evil act, yet this is dismissed.
Blood magic, such as Blood Transcription often requires the use and/or ingestion of a creatures blood. I understand that this is distasteful to the uninitiated, but when used as a means to an end (such as gaining rare spells from a fallen foe) I hardly think it evil in and of itself. The ruling against blood has also removed many of our dhampir brethren's intrinsic racial feats. I hardly see this as fair to them, or aspiring bloodmages of other races. What o the cruoromancer? The bloatmage? Blood restrictions are archaic and superstitious, and no worse I offer than what is already accepted.
Not to berate the Chelaxians needlessly, but why dismiss their worship of Asmodeus ( an admittedly evil deity), their summoning devils, and cloak and dagger conspiracies, while we necromancers seek only knowledge beyond death's door?
I do not speak for any beyond myself, but I ask not to be limited by the actions and opinions of these uninitiated, superstitious...individuals...who cannot even cast a cantrip interfering with my research.
Thank you for your support!
Pogrist the Great
Huh, did blood transcription become illegal recently? Could've sworn it was legal.
You're not allowed benefit from canabalism. The End
Well... You are allowed to devour souls in numerous ways, murder, assassinate, extort, summon angels and demons to do your bidding, bind an imp to your service, and work for factions who's intent may not be friendly.
Mind you devouring a soul is actually a trait right in the guide to organized play. Do souls not count?
yes, last update of additional resources it was made illegal.
Ahh, that sucks! That wasn't a half bad spell. Always happened off screen anyway in my experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanical benefits make everything evil.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're not allowed benefit from canabalism. The End
I remember back in college when we debated philosophy that I could not find anything intrinsically evil about cannibalism.
Could it be unhealthy? Sure. But so are donuts.
Unsanitary? If you weren't careful.
Taboo? Only to some cultures.
Unnatural? Absolutely not.
Disrespectful? Only if the deceased viewed it as so.
Basically, when it came down to it, the Sahuagin had it right all along. "Meat is meat". Cannibalism is no more evil than eating a cheeseburger.
Now, the act of murder? That's a different argument.
You're not allowed benefit from canabalism. The EndI remember back in college when we debated philosophy that I could not find anything intrinsically evil about cannibalism.
Which is why some people aren't a big fan of the idea that its been deemed evil by someone. Anytime you give someone an absolute about morality that tends to happen really. Hurts even more than it extends to drinking the blood of the dead and vampire characters.
Might have something to do with it being something your mother may not entirely approve of.
|
So how long is it going to be before my Cleric of Pharasma loses the benefit of one of her domain spells (Death Knell).
I find it ironic that I get grief for the spell but no one bats an eye that my Death (Pharasma) domain has an 'evil spell' but it's perfectly okay to make do with the 'original' version. (Which has a spell no true Follower of Pharasma would ever use)
Here's the heart of it: "cannibalism" is a cultural perception, and in the case of the dhampir not appropriate as human blood is the natural(?) food of their sires. After re-reading the intentionally vague descriptions of the alignments, I do NOT see this as intrinsically evil. One needs consider intent and circumstance.
If an individual were slaying innocent people just to get at their blood and corpses, THAT is evil, certainly. If one is scavenging the blood of an enemy (and likely evil) sorcerer/bard/cleric/etc. where is the evil here?
If this is a mechanical issue, I just don't see it, but it's being packaged as a moral issue. Now, if we're talking about morality and mature content, your moral compass must point to Cheliax. I reread the background, history, and so on surrounding the faction and found plenty of "justification" for how "one can be a Hellknight, but not be evil" or "worship Asmodeus, and not be evil" and so on. Please consider the gravity of such a choice- in character and from a player perspective- of advocating devil-worship. Blood drinking and animating dead is certainly no worse than this, and on a maturity/morality/young player issue, don't you think serving the self proclaimed Prince of Darkness might set off a few more parental alarms than zombies and vampires?
I only draw Cheliax into this to illustrate the perceived unevenness of the censorship (with the rationale given). The kind of well-written diversity that Chelaxian culture offers characters is exactly what I hope to retain with this appeal. I, a 35 year old RPG fan with about 20 years of gaming under my belt, understand that this is a game with some questionably mature content- questions that I prefer answered individually rather than blanket-bans.
The post in which Blood Transcription was banned was rather short and dismissive (like the first response to the OP). I only ask that the matter receive a bit more thoughtful consideration, otherwise where will the banhammer stop?
Venture-Lieutenant, California—Sacramento
|
I find it ironic that I get grief for the spell but no one bats an eye that my Death (Pharasma) domain has an 'evil spell' but it's perfectly okay to make do with the 'original' version. (Which has a spell no true Follower of Pharasma would ever use)
Plenty of people "bat an eye" about Pharasma and the Death Domain, that one of the reasons this blog was made. (And is PFS Legal)
|
|
I find it ironic that I get grief for the spell but no one bats an eye that my Death (Pharasma) domain has an 'evil spell' but it's perfectly okay to make do with the 'original' version. (Which has a spell no true Follower of Pharasma would ever use)Plenty of people "bat an eye" about Pharasma and the Death Domain, that one of the reasons this blog was made. (And is PFS Legal)
True. And the spell being argued over WAS legal. I had it on my wizard but never used it because RIGHT after I got it they changed scribing costs. I get why some folks are irked. If you're a wizard you are told your flexibility is your 'asset' in the society but you only get two spells a level and something like 1 spell book per something like 5 wizards encountered happens. And we got clucked at when we cluster together to share at the table.
I have to wonder when Death knell gets the treatment next though I have to admit it isn't too effective at the tables I play. I can't use aura because it doesn't discriminate and I don't typically enjoy killing my peers in the society. (Though Roasa is unique in that she HAS killed a peer in the society). I am just saying I get the stink eye for playing a TN Versatile Channeler who has used it to send others to the Boneyard.
So, does anyone agree that the blood-drinking stipulation seems a little silly, considering spells like Death Knell and an entire faction/nation of rationalized devil-worshipers? Anyone?
I mean, if you want a completely vanilla game, you have to scrap:
Cheliax
All evil deities
Necromancy almost completely
About half the Summon Monster creature list
Witches
Magic
Monsters
Swords that are too pointy
d4's because they are too pointy
...
Can we still roll dice?
(This is gonna sound snarky because plain text and all but I'm curious.)
PFS is sort of like Paizo's home game, right? My understanding is that there are several "house rules" for PFS and one is "no evil." Shouldn't they be allowed to make that rule? I mean they don't have to publish and run PFS. (Yes I know it introduces people to the game and they sell published adventures and all that.)
My point being, if you want to play evil (or a non-evil cannablistic blood drinker) but Paizo doesn't want that in their home game, shouldn't they have the right to say no?
If you wanted to play, I don't know, let's say a pediophile (feel free to use your own example) but your friend was like, "dude, I'm seriously not cool with that." Would you play a different concept or try to convince your friend why your pediophile isn't that bad?
Again , I don't play PFS (so really I probably shouldn't be in this neck of the messageboards) but so many times I see this. Paizo doesn't want A, how close can I get to A? How about, don't play A in PFS? Play A in a home game.
(You can now all tell me why I'm wrong. Have fun with it!)
So, does anyone agree that the blood-drinking stipulation seems a little silly, considering spells like Death Knell and an entire faction/nation of rationalized devil-worshipers? Anyone?
Oh hai there. I'd also like to point out eating souls is allowed, and that stealing, murder, and extortion is encouraged!
d4's because they are too pointy
D4's be deadly.
(You can now all tell me why I'm wrong. Have fun with it!)
Your wrong because I don't like hearing what you have to say!
But more seriously, not every decision is one you may agree with(There are plenty I don't, poor snakes), but homegames tend to be much more flexible.
(You can now all tell me why I'm wrong. Have fun with it!)Your wrong because I don't like hearing what you have to say!
But more seriously, not every decision is one you may agree with(There are plenty I don't, poor snakes), but homegames tend to be much more flexible.
Hey! He didn't say that. I did!
Hey! He didn't say that. I did!
Copypasta'd the template and words separately. Fixed now for ya'.
Hey! He didn't say that. I did!Copypasta'd the template and words separately. Fixed now for ya'.
Damn straight!
|
|
If you wanted to play, I don't know, let's say a pediophile (feel free to use your own example) but your friend was like, "dude, I'm seriously not cool with that." Would you play a different concept or try to convince your friend why your pediophile isn't that bad?
Well, that's not really a valid comparison. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. Cannibalism is just a hard core case of the munchies.
If you wanted to play, I don't know, let's say a pediophile (feel free to use your own example) but your friend was like, "dude, I'm seriously not cool with that." Would you play a different concept or try to convince your friend why your pediophile isn't that bad?Well, that's not really a valid comparison. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. Cannibalism is just a hard core case of the munchies.
I said you could use your own example.
^Yeah, that comparison makes anything outright WRONG.
But Durngrun, I get your point. In the homegame we ran back home, the GM certainly had houserules, but we certainly could question them when we ran up against a new one. That's all I'm doing. If Mr. Brock comes on and reads this, and remains unmoved by my rather rousing speech (lol), I've got nothing else to say or complain about. As for now, we're just players talking around the proverbial table until he make a statement.
Do you take the first "no" you get on something, especially when that answer was given to someone else who WANTED a "no" and your side of the argument wasn't even casually presented? NO! lol
|
You're not allowed benefit from canabalism. The EndWell... You are allowed to devour souls in numerous ways, murder, assassinate, extort, summon angels and demons to do your bidding, bind an imp to your service, and work for factions who's intent may not be friendly.
Mind you devouring a soul is actually a trait right in the guide to organized play. Do souls not count?
That's...fairly alarming. Say what one wants about cannibalism in its various forms, devouring a soul is on an entirely separate level of horrible.
Emulating daemons, the most hated beings in the setting, the ones that have angels working with devils and demons to stop, seems to be far more in need of a ban than emulating lizardfolk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...or how about NOT banning it and allowing that characters of different factions have different views on different things, and must set said differences aside to work together in the Society?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Pullman
|
How is working on vacation a vacation?MM&J have probably seen and read through this, but typically only lurk unless something really needs to be said on the subject. And sometimes they say things for funzies.Yep. I read through every thread, even on vacation.
Love of the game!
Do you take the first "no" you get on something, especially when that answer was given to someone else who WANTED a "no" and your side of the argument wasn't even casually presented? NO! lol
Well my GM is a close personal friend of mine so if he said "no evil" then I wouldn't try to skirt as close to evil as I could. If he said "no cannibilism," I wouldn't try to play a character that was "only a cannibal culturally." There are so many character concepts out there, I can find one that doesn't instantly bump up against some restriction put in place.
So... should we just anything that could be conceived as bad then?
So... should we just anything that could be conceived as bad then?
Did they say "no bad guys?" Or did they say "no Evil alignment" and "no blood drinking?"
So... should we just anything that could be conceived as bad then?Did they say "no bad guys?" Or did they say "no Evil alignment" and "no blood drinking?"
They said don't be a jerk and to cooperate, among other things.
They said don't be a jerk and to cooperate, among other things.So... should we just anything that could be conceived as bad then?Did they say "no bad guys?" Or did they say "no Evil alignment" and "no blood drinking?"
So...you agree with me?
Isn't there a spell that allows you to know what happened after the fact? Blood something. It requires blood or a body part. Is that also not legal? Why not just nerf the component requirement and say you just need to touch the blood and concentrate for a certain time. Wouldn't that be an easier solution?
So...you agree with me?
Nope. I don't agree with a lot of the rules put up. I live with them though. I just wait for the homegame where I can play the whatever o' what I want to play. I can always agree that you shouldn't be disruptive and obnoxious and ruin peoples fun though, in particular in a public setting. However, that doesn't mean I think banning things wholesale is the best way to handle things, especially if you hunt for them.
Isn't there a spell that allows you to know what happened after the fact? Blood something. It requires blood or a body part. Is that also not legal? Why not just nerf the component requirement and say you just need to touch the blood and concentrate for a certain time. Wouldn't that be an easier solution?
Blood Biography, and to my knowledge its not banned.
Society doesn't change things often if at all.