| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general 2e seems to have moved away from top-down "this is the Canon™ truth of the universe" to more in-universe commentary and theories on what that truth could be.
I am usually pretty down on the in universe fiction included in rulebooks but I wouldn't mind the inclusion of an in-universe debate on necro-ethics in IM, similar to some of the stuff we saw in SoM. Paizo can have it's cake and eat it too, allowing the differing in-universe perspectives to do the heavy lifting.
Want to have a character that thinks Pharasma is a wrong or a lier? Cool! Want to have an edge lord who thinks they're doing a little evil to stop the big Evil? Great! And that can spiral out into the opinions of non-necromancers and how they see it.
It'd be a win-win and maximize character concepts, which I'd wager is what Paizo will prioritize.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel choosing a lizardfolk to be the iconic Necromancer helps avoid some of the usual ethical problems with creating undead, because it's common practice in many canon iruxi cultures for ancestral spirits to stay among their tribe through their bones, which can then be used to create temporary protector undead like the Iruxi Ossature. Other ancestries like the kholo can also call upon their ancestors in similar ways, so there are ways to create undead that aren't fundamentally evil. How this sits against the larger cosmic balance and the ontology of undeath is a different question, and I agree that there is a problem with how all undeath is often painted as ontologically evil when these exceptions clearly exist, but it also does mean that having a Necromancer in the party doesn't automatically mean that they're evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general 2e seems to have moved away from top-down "this is the Canon™ truth of the universe" to more in-universe commentary and theories on what that truth could be.
I am usually pretty down on the in universe fiction included in rulebooks but I wouldn't mind the inclusion of an in-universe debate on necro-ethics in IM, similar to some of the stuff we saw in SoM. Paizo can have it's cake and eat it too, allowing the differing in-universe perspectives to do the heavy lifting.
Want to have a character that thinks Pharasma is a wrong or a lier? Cool! Want to have an edge lord who thinks they're doing a little evil to stop the big Evil? Great! And that can spiral out into the opinions of non-necromancers and how they see it.
It'd be a win-win and maximize character concepts, which I'd wager is what Paizo will prioritize.
Personally I liked having some "these are the cannon truths of the universe" including that Necromany was evil. There was lore to support why it was the case and it made sense. It explained why Pharasma was against necromancy while otherwise being neutral.
But I can also understand other people may have wanted more wiggle room around Necromancy. It's not right or wrong, just a desire to have a different basis for the game universe.
For me, part of Paizo's products aren't just the mechanical rules elements, but also the lore and setting of the universe. So I am slightly disappointed that more gray has been introduced. But I am free (when I am the GM) to say "It still works like it did in 1E", or before the 2E remaster, or whatever I want to set.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion has non-undead undead with things like the anger phantom eodolon and dhampir.
I see no reason we can't have undead, which are always evil, and also the unalive, which are neither here nor there, in the setting. ;P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel choosing a lizardfolk to be the iconic Necromancer helps avoid some of the usual ethical problems with creating undead, because it's common practice in many canon iruxi cultures for ancestral spirits to stay among their tribe through their bones, which can then be used to create temporary protector undead like the Iruxi Ossature. Other ancestries like the kholo can also call upon their ancestors in similar ways, so there are ways to create undead that aren't fundamentally evil. How this sits against the larger cosmic balance and the ontology of undeath is a different question, and I agree that there is a problem with how all undeath is often painted as ontologically evil when these exceptions clearly exist, but it also does mean that having a Necromancer in the party doesn't automatically mean that they're evil.
I am far too distracted by the fact this lizard skeleton has a synapsid skull. Lizards are diapsids. It also has a very mammalian nose hole
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general 2e seems to have moved away from top-down "this is the Canon™ truth of the universe" to more in-universe commentary and theories on what that truth could be.
I am usually pretty down on the in universe fiction included in rulebooks but I wouldn't mind the inclusion of an in-universe debate on necro-ethics in IM, similar to some of the stuff we saw in SoM. Paizo can have it's cake and eat it too, allowing the differing in-universe perspectives to do the heavy lifting.
Want to have a character that thinks Pharasma is a wrong or a lier? Cool! Want to have an edge lord who thinks they're doing a little evil to stop the big Evil? Great! And that can spiral out into the opinions of non-necromancers and how they see it.
It'd be a win-win and maximize character concepts, which I'd wager is what Paizo will prioritize.
Not saying this as someone who works here, but I like the flexibility! Sometimes I hear about a concept and have an idea about it, and get really excited to play it, and then get discouraged when a big scary book says "Ha! You thought you could fanaticize in the fantasy book??? How foolish!" That being said, I do enjoy when things are canon, but I just also enjoy the flexibility.
Golarion has non-undead undead with things like the anger phantom eodolon and dhampir.
I see no reason we can't have undead, which are always evil, and also the unalive, which are neither here nor there, in the setting. ;P
Yes, I think that's the distinction this class will make given it has a holy dead feat to sanctify spirit damage on your thralls.
Creating permanent undead is evil/wrong/disfavored by Pharasma/widely reviled/whatever.
"Necromancy" is disreputable, maybe, but while it involves other practices like thrall creation and the Summon Undead spell that mimick or aesthetically resemble "real" undead creation they aren't cosmically bad or putting you on a psychopomp's hit list (you're probably still on their watchlist).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion has non-undead undead with things like the anger phantom eodolon and dhampir.
I see no reason we can't have undead, which are always evil, and also the unalive, which are neither here nor there, in the setting. ;P
I was okay with that, for unique creatures. A handful of individual creatures in the entirety of the setting with various reasons as to how they ended up that way. It's actually a nice counterpoint to "Undead are always evil". But within my setting when I do stuff like that, they're not really undead and how they came to be is different. And the most important part is the uniqueness of their nature, because when it becomes common it's no longer special or interesting (for me).
But again, I'm just describing my personal taste and how I choose to run thing when I GM.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to remember reading when the undead PC options were released that the nature of the negative (void) energy that sustained them was a constant corrupting force. That some rare undead are able to stave off the corrupting affects through willpower or exceptional purpose or force of their personality at least for a time, years, sometimes even centuries, but that it was an inevitability that they would eventually be fully corrupted by it.
Frankly, I liked this description. I also like that it came from an in-world source so there could always be wiggle room.
As for the other part of this discussion, I think it is fair that some people in the world would react poorly based on the region. Obviously a necromancer in my Iruxi or Kholo societies wouldn't get a second look. Even more pragmatic or power based human societies would be ok with it. Those who are closer to Pharasma or who are not exposed to it much would find it revolting. And that's ok to me, makes the world seem more real rather than accommodating to how we, as players, feel.
As to me personally, I can definitely see myself playing a more "good" Necromancer. Either because they come from a culture that doesn't view it as evil, or by using it as a means to an end in a pragmatic way. For example, one of my favorite D&D 3.x classes was the Malconvoker. They specifically had to be good aligned, but their schtick was that they summoned demons and devils to fight their enemies. Forcing evil beings to work for the greater good.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its worth noting that technically the void is a completely neutral force in the universe at large, but when you accidentally replace you vital essence with an unending hunger that drives you to consume life, it tends to make it harder for you to behave like a well-adjusted member of society who cares about others' well-being. Describing it as corrupting is probably accurate, but to head off a bit of unnecessary confusion, the void itself is indeed neutral.
Vitality energy (positive energy in old speak) and Void energy (negative energy in old speak) and antithesis to one another. Creatures powered by void energy seem to inherently want to destroy those powered by vitality. And void energy will degrade and destroy materials not created with void energy.
Inherently, you could argue neither is good or evil, simply different kinds of energy. Like if matter and anti-matter were energy.
However, for vitality powered beings, because void powered beings all seem to inherently want to destroy vitality powered beings...well that's pretty inconvenient.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again I point to carnivores and omnivores. They inherently NEED to destroy other living things, powered by this vitality energy, to survive. Hell, if we're talking about all living things powered by living energy, any animal requires the destruction of a vitality powered living being to survive.
|
Again I point to carnivores and omnivores. They inherently NEED to destroy other living things, powered by this vitality energy, to survive. Hell, if we're talking about all living things powered by living energy, any animal requires the destruction of a vitality powered living being to survive.
Except bees. Honey doesn't require the death or destruction of any living thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again I point to carnivores and omnivores. They inherently NEED to destroy other living things, powered by this vitality energy, to survive. Hell, if we're talking about all living things powered by living energy, any animal requires the destruction of a vitality powered living being to survive.Except bees. Honey doesn't require the death or destruction of any living thing.
Well there are meat eating bees that apparently make honey from meat, but I digress.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Geez, I get that in your headcannon, to make things simpler, you assume things are absolutes. This is good, this is evil. and at your tables that's fine. The Game, and it's lore is a sandbox to dream in, and the writers and devs expressly state this with The First Rule telling us any rules that are more limiting than fun, are to be ignored.
In any case. I wonder what sort of new runes will be introduced.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A creature eating another creature is merely a natural transfer of vitality. That energy is often used later to beget new life via procreation. And so the cycle continues.
The same is not true when a void creature creates another void creature from a vitality creature. That vitality is lost and the natural cycle is disrupted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again I point to carnivores and omnivores. They inherently NEED to destroy other living things, powered by this vitality energy, to survive. Hell, if we're talking about all living things powered by living energy, any animal requires the destruction of a vitality powered living being to survive.
You are wildly and intentionally misrepresenting the point made when talking about what void energy does when it animates a creature simply because they phrased it as "consume life". I do not believe for a second you don't know what was meant by this statement and that it isn't equivalent to fulfilling your caloric needs as an organism. Undead clearly and obviously desire and engage in antisocial behavior. The game consistently and repeatedly shows us how undead are ontologically evil up to and including the fact they are all eventually corrupted by the nature as mentioned above. Undead in this setting are contrasted as uniquely malignant and malevolent in a way few other things are. Their nature as inherently, universally and essentially evil, ontologically evil, is given a description with the "hunger" but it's flowery language used to describe this and frame it
|
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Several comments here got flagged for being in the wrong forum, but I'm a little confused as to why? Everyone's been talking about undead things and necromancy for a bit, and they're all about that, so they seem on topic to me.
Just as a note, we can't move individual comments on a thread for being in the wrong forum. We can only move whole threads, so flagging a comment as in the wrong forum doesn't really do much? Just wanted to let you all know!
All this being said, I see no issue with these comments, so I'm removing the flags!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A creature eating another creature is merely a natural transfer of vitality. That energy is often used later to beget new life via procreation. And so the cycle continues.
The same is not true when a void creature creates another void creature from a vitality creature. That vitality is lost and the natural cycle is disrupted.
This mirrors my pet theory from many years ago.
Animating dead is more than just infusing a corpse with Negative Energy because Negative Energy can't grant vitality; that's Positive Energy's job. Instead, animating dead flesh uses the onyx in the spell as a focus that opens a sort of connection to the Negative Energy Plane that is focused through the corpse. Ambient PE is pulled through this connection into the NEPlane, where it is negated and destroyed. It is the Positive Energy flowing through the corpse that powers Undead, not the Negative Energy itself, as the process is sort of a gross mockery of the natural attrition of life force in living creatures. Animation only persists because the PE being drawn through the corpse is obliterated as it contacts the metaphysical connection to the NEPLane, causing a constant flow of life force through the dead tissue in attempt to create equilibrium.
As the undead is damaged, its connection to the NEPlane weakens until it closes and cannot draw any PE into itself to maintain animation. NE "heals" the undead because it strengthens the connection and allows more PE to be drawn through it, prolonging its unlife. PE harms the undead by altering the balance of NE and PE "pressures" around the portal to the NEPlane and causing the tide briefly flow the other way, drawing NE from its plane to be obliterated in ours. Equilibrium is restored quickly thereafter, but the connection is already weakened by the sudden reversal of energy flow.
Until I have the book in front of me to read the cosmological implications for the Necromancer class, my assumption is that the Thralls have the form of undead creatures but lack the entropic siphoning of Vitality from the Material Plane and the instrumental use of a soul that marks true undead, which is also what makes them temporary. Just sacks of ambient Vitality energy in the world held into the shape of undeath, waiting to be exploited and returned to a formless state.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are wildly and intentionally misrepresenting the point made when talking about what void energy does when it animates a creature simply because they phrased it as "consume life". I do not believe for a second you don't know what was meant by this statement and that it isn't equivalent to fulfilling your caloric needs as an organism. Undead clearly and obviously desire and engage in antisocial behavior. The game consistently and repeatedly shows us how undead are ontologically evil up to and including the fact they are all eventually corrupted by the nature as mentioned above. Undead in this setting are contrasted as uniquely malignant and malevolent in a way few other things are. Their nature as inherently, universally and essentially evil, ontologically evil, is given a description with the "hunger" but it's flowery language used to describe this and frame it
Your implication is that I'm trolling, simply saying things to provoke anger and garner attention. No, I actually mean what I'm saying.
And Ontologically evil? Except for all the exceptions, but those exceptions prove the rule, right?
As for corruption, so is Money and Authority. And I don't see you trying to charactarize Druma and Prophets of Callistrade as an Ontological Evil.
The truth is no, Undeath is not uniquely evil in this setting, at least not currently. I get that you prefer when the setting fit into one headcannon, but that has clearly shifted at this point and NUANCE is allowed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone seen any hints at when we might get more previews? The early level necromancer preview was awesome. And I do know about the paizo preview on July 10th (so far awaaaay). Has anyone heard of any other content creators who have permission to spoil some stuff, and when we might see it?
Has anyone seen any hints at when we might get more previews? The early level necromancer preview was awesome. And I do know about the paizo preview on July 10th (so far awaaaay). Has anyone heard of any other content creators who have permission to spoil some stuff, and when we might see it?
I was low-key hoping for weekly updates on KnowDirection, but that's obviously not happening or we would have a new article since yesterday.
I asked the author of the first article on reddit if there's an ETA for new ones. No answer yet, unfortunately.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So one RL complication that can quickly arise when talking about necromancy in a fantasy setting is that people have radically different, but deeply, emotionally committed values surround the very idea of souls and spirits, as well as what all of that is attached to.
In Golarion, there is a very broad, general metaphysical system that governs these things. It is not absolute, many things slip through those cracks. It is very easy to play a character who has real powers tied to gods, magic, even fantasy science that contradicts the established doctrinal “this is what vitality and void and the afterlife are about.” At the same time, the setting is not going to bend very far to center alternative systems as something that people will adopt and feel comfortable with at a cannonical level. Figures like Tar-Baphon have been using Necromancy terribly for longer than most earth civilizations have ever existed. Worse yet, he never seems to actually lose, only grow stronger. Figures like Geb paint only a marginally better picture of necromancy to the living. The undead generally do not like the living and destroy the living either with glee, or complete disregard. This is long standing “facts” for the vast majority of people on Golarion.
Zoken, forgive me if I am misreading your thoughts here, but it doesn’t feel like you are satisfied with “I can play an individual necromancer who’s magic and purpose come from outside the Golarion primary metaphysics canon.” You seem to want to be able lead a rebellion against that metaphysics canon with the full support of the creative team that built that canon in the first place. You get really mad when people say “that sounds like a great place for a homebrew adventure!” Even though the system is full of seeds of stories intended for people to take Golarion and make it their own at their own adventuring table.
That is why I have repeatedly asked you what specifically you are looking for?
An AP where the players get to completely upend all of the decades of lore written about gods like Pharasma? Do you see how monumentally colossal a task that would be? That feels like an edition ending AP at their minimum.
An AP where one of the less evil forms of necromancy is able to really take shape and shine outside of Pharasma’s order? That feels significantly more feasible, but will probably not be something that overthrows pharasma’s order in the inner sea.
A lore book to just change all the past lore books because of one new class?
It is already a little suspect to me to have “spirit” Necromancers seeking divine sanctification since there are many ways that is already covered by classes like cleric, oracle, and animist. Necromancers are not the class for respectfully connecting to the divine spark of living or formerly living things. I actually think the iconic might go too far in confusing this and kind of presenting more of a bone oracle backstory or a man animist backstory. They are occult instead of divine because the magic they use should give you goosebumps and an uneasy sense of dread.
Lastly. Real world arguments about doctors transplanting organs and people eating food are absurd to the point of extreme irritation for me. The codes doctors follow are not about them being holy exemplars of virtue. They are about lines in the sand humans have drawn over thousands of years to create a baseline “people who examine the dead and dying are not inherently absolute monsters.” And the number of real world villains who have decided that those rules don’t need to apply to them because they understand the value of what they are doing better than the rest of society is the reason we have so much fiction that says necromancy is evil.
|
Vitality energy (positive energy in old speak) and Void energy (negative energy in old speak) and antithesis to one another. Creatures powered by void energy seem to inherently want to destroy those powered by vitality. And void energy will degrade and destroy materials not created with void energy.
Inherently, you could argue neither is good or evil, simply different kinds of energy. Like if matter and anti-matter were energy.
However, for vitality powered beings, because void powered beings all seem to inherently want to destroy vitality powered beings...well that's pretty inconvenient.
There's another thing about undead too (taken from an old post of mine in the Necroethics thread):
Also, seeing the "Destroy on sight" reaction of the Void's native inhabitants to undead, I feel what might be unnatural in undeath is the mix of void energy and soul (which is born from Creation's Forge) that animates undead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is very frustrating. I don't feel my discourse has been any more aggressive than anyone else's, but I'm the one being tone-policed.
two I felt I could dismiss because we've been disagreeing. However The third, Tactical, I can't just ignore.
But we aren't really disagreeing here. Your point seems to be that necromancy shouldn't be ontologically evil, which I think everyone here agrees, but for some reason you seem to hyperfocus when some of us bring the topics in which necromancy is hard to justify as not being evil.
For example, I seriously doubt my neighbour would agree if I went to their backyard to dig up their deceased grandma's corpse (why does my neighbor has their grandma's corpse in their graveyard? I don't know, just go with the flow) and I used it to essentialy become my slave. I also highly doubt the grandma would want to return as a mindless puppet either, so by resurrecting her I'm not only disrespecting her relatives, but disrespecting herself as well.
This is the ultimate necromancer character trope, and it doesn't matter how you want to frame it, this is evil.
However, even in my original comment I mentioned there's edge cases where necromancer can be more ethically correct. For example, using a spell like Talking Corpse (or ask your GM to flavor a similar effect, since Talking Corpse is a 4th-rank spell) to ask the soul of the person if they would want to be brought back to be used by the necromancer for whatever they want to do, or probably the campaign takes place in a nation where people in life can choose to sign a contract that allows the government to resurrect their corpses as undead to be used guards or whatever. If you try giving it a thought you can likely come up with better reasons than these.
But anyways, this shows necromancy isn't ontologically evil, and neither are the undead created through such methods as they follow the orders given by them by those who resurrected them, but it can't be denied that in most cultures people aren't going to be open to necromancy because its disrespectful to both the deceased and its still living relatives. If we talk about Golarion specifically, then either if you are ethical or unethical about your necromancy Pharasmin priests are going to be pissed at you regardless, but unless your GM hates you or you want to resurrect a whole Absalom-size city as undead I feel you wouldn't have much problems with psychopomps and the like, and still, I feel that's risk of playing a necromancer anyways. Like playing a caster on the Mana Wastes without wanting to engage with wild magic.
|
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been monitoring this conversation for a bit, and although I had to remove several comments for baiting, I don't think one side has been anymore heated than another side! It also hasn't really gotten past civility until today, really. Please keep things kind and agree to disagree where you have to!
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting back on the topics of mechanics of the Necromancer and its hype, I just came across a small post by Know Direction with another awesome tidbit.
Seems there is a 6th level feat that gives Necromancer an extra spell slot, always at your highest rank, that can only be used for Summon Undead. Apparently it does something else too, but they said they had an article next week that will cover it in more detail.
Whatever else it does is bonus to me. An extra spell to summon undead at highest rank...yes to more to add to my growing horde! I'm going to find it likely hard to pass up, but man all the feats I've seen so far are between good and phenomenal. No duds so far, so can't wait to see what else is coming!
Getting back on the topics of mechanics of the Necromancer and its hype, I just came across a small post by Know Direction with another awesome tidbit.
Seems there is a 6th level feat that gives Necromancer an extra spell slot, always at your highest rank, that can only be used for Summon Undead. Apparently it does something else too, but they said they had an article next week that will cover it in more detail.
Whatever else it does is bonus to me. An extra spell to summon undead at highest rank...yes to more to add to my growing horde! I'm going to find it likely hard to pass up, but man all the feats I've seen so far are between good and phenomenal. No duds so far, so can't wait to see what else is coming!
Oh dang! That's awesome. And cool to see we'll get to see more next week too. Thank you for sharing.
I hope it allows you to destroy a thrall to sustain said Summon Undead as a free action. Or at least destroy a thrall to cast it as a 2-Actions spell.
Considering how many thralls you can summon in a single turn, that strikes me as a little unbalanced.
But it sure would make the necromancer feel unique.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I understand it part of the reason that undead have a tendency towards evil is that running a machine on void energy when it was designed to run on vital energy causes something to go wrong, much like if you put rocket fuel in a regular car.
Book of the Dead underlines that how this works is that every kind of undead has some kind of hunger that it needs to figure out how to handle, because if you allow it to run amok it will eventually control you (so rather than the suave vampire you're just tackling people and dragging them into alleys to get their blood out.)
A specific undead can be a good person in large part because they have figured out a way to handle their undead hunger in a way that doesn't require them to act badly (e.g. a vampire who only takes a small amount of blood from willing individuals who are paid for this.) It's just that doing this is significantly rarer than the other end of the spectrum, and the person who made you into a vampire is also almost certainly an evil person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting back on the topics of mechanics of the Necromancer and its hype, I just came across a small post by Know Direction with another awesome tidbit.
Seems there is a 6th level feat that gives Necromancer an extra spell slot, always at your highest rank, that can only be used for Summon Undead. Apparently it does something else too, but they said they had an article next week that will cover it in more detail.
Whatever else it does is bonus to me. An extra spell to summon undead at highest rank...yes to more to add to my growing horde! I'm going to find it likely hard to pass up, but man all the feats I've seen so far are between good and phenomenal. No duds so far, so can't wait to see what else is coming!
Ohhhh where was this post at?
Ive checked Bluesky but was not able to find anything.Nevermind I found it.
I am so excited.
And still no link?
*Cries feeling left out tears*
Its on Bluesky the guy from Know Direction who did the blog on Investing In Necromancer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its on Bluesky the guy from Know Direction who did the blog on Investing In Necromancer.
I don't have Bluesky. Any time I try a Bluesky link, it just asks me to create an account.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its on Bluesky the guy from Know Direction who did the blog on Investing In Necromancer.I don't have Bluesky. Any time I try a Bluesky link, it just asks me to create an account.
Bluesky, unlike Twitter, does not have "Private accounts" but it does have a "nuclear block" that is enforced in part by an account option that prevents logged out people from seeing your posts (so that someone you blocked can't keep tabs on you by logging out.)
That's what you're running into there. It's not enabled by default, but a lot of people use it.
Sort of slightly off topic but we don't get monthly shipping threads anymore? Do we have an idea when impossible magic starts shipping/subscribers might get their pdfs?