Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
I love pretty much everything Starlear said here. Wow. Something like this would be amazing.
>> What if Necros "succeeded" at the great work, and something happened which made their reaction be "Oh crap, we truly, deeply, irrevocably screwed up, that was a horrible idea". Then they (probably non-perverse only) became more about cleaning up their mess for completely self-serving reasons - they don't care that they broke the world except for the part where whatever they brought about by breaking the world is waaaaay worse for them than it is for the rest of the world (though still pretty bad for the rest of the world too).
There is already a legitimate internal Necromantic conflict somewhat along those lines -- the struggle to reign in the Perverse. Many on the "Team Good Guy" side choose to deliberately ignore it. My speculations on why are below.
>> The primary reason that I think so many people do so many stupid things re: necros is that there is literally no way to interpret anything they do or could do as good or helpful in any way. Society loses nothing in eradicating them from existence completely.
Society actually loses quite a lot by eradicating sentient participants from existence. The Knife not only is an apt metaphor of the delicate balancing act Necromancers have to do, but the one an Inquisitor must perform, as well. The struggle to maintain humanity while performing monstrous acts and/or fighting monsters is a difficult one. To adequately combat the Hunger, simply killing mortals just doesn't work. So an Inquisitor needs to learn things Man Was Not Meant to Know, and do things to other humans that are, plainly, just as horrific as the acts performed by Necromancers. Torture and the murder of innocents are simply tools in a proper Inquisitorial toolbox. See: Khurek, as well as the Hounds of Rutilor -- or, heck, look at Kigot.
The problem with roleplaying out this internal conflict on both sides is two-fold, in my eyes: Firstly, Inquisitors are then subject the same cognitive dissonance that players of Necromancers face. To a certain extent, no one wants to portray themselves in a negative light. So, in order to avoid cognitive dissonance, the narrative of a pure battle between good and evil is one that players take on the mantle of. With that narrative, there is no roleplay other than "Kill the Heretic," so anyone who wields that mantle will by default be someone who is largely avoided by members of the other side who do not buy into that narrative, especially if there's no upside to engaging.
Secondly, and more simply: It's much easier to roleplay union against Team Bad Guy than it is to play internal politics.
>>Necros let out the hunger with their hubris and ignorance and become demon hunters to save their own hides or something. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We can burn that friend in righteous fire when we aren't in imminent danger of being devoured.
There are Necromancers already trying to spin that narrative without success because of the desire of certain members of Team Good Guy to preserve the Team narrative. There are Necromancers who are not Pro-Zombie-Up-Go-After-Theren. They don't need Lore backing -- they already have it. They need other people to let them forge the narrative they choose for their characters. You want a more nuanced option to roleplay with a Necromancer? Here's a starting point. What happened if your butcher/baker/significant other/neighbor happened to be a Necromancer? What conversations would you have while you're in opposition? How would you interact with a Necromancer who's zombie-out in War Mode vs a guy your local gossip says might be a Necromancer?
"Nobody cares about the feasibility of Sidhlot's portrayal of evil. That's not the point. He's older than dragons and so metal he poops viking helmets." - Armifer
"That is so not how magic works." -Raesh
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu-proxy R'lyeh
There is already a legitimate internal Necromantic conflict somewhat along those lines -- the struggle to reign in the Perverse. Many on the "Team Good Guy" side choose to deliberately ignore it. My speculations on why are below.
>> The primary reason that I think so many people do so many stupid things re: necros is that there is literally no way to interpret anything they do or could do as good or helpful in any way. Society loses nothing in eradicating them from existence completely.
Society actually loses quite a lot by eradicating sentient participants from existence. The Knife not only is an apt metaphor of the delicate balancing act Necromancers have to do, but the one an Inquisitor must perform, as well. The struggle to maintain humanity while performing monstrous acts and/or fighting monsters is a difficult one. To adequately combat the Hunger, simply killing mortals just doesn't work. So an Inquisitor needs to learn things Man Was Not Meant to Know, and do things to other humans that are, plainly, just as horrific as the acts performed by Necromancers. Torture and the murder of innocents are simply tools in a proper Inquisitorial toolbox. See: Khurek, as well as the Hounds of Rutilor -- or, heck, look at Kigot.
The problem with roleplaying out this internal conflict on both sides is two-fold, in my eyes: Firstly, Inquisitors are then subject the same cognitive dissonance that players of Necromancers face. To a certain extent, no one wants to portray themselves in a negative light. So, in order to avoid cognitive dissonance, the narrative of a pure battle between good and evil is one that players take on the mantle of. With that narrative, there is no roleplay other than "Kill the Heretic," so anyone who wields that mantle will by default be someone who is largely avoided by members of the other side who do not buy into that narrative, especially if there's no upside to engaging.
Secondly, and more simply: It's much easier to roleplay union against Team Bad Guy than it is to play internal politics.
>>Necros let out the hunger with their hubris and ignorance and become demon hunters to save their own hides or something. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We can burn that friend in righteous fire when we aren't in imminent danger of being devoured.
There are Necromancers already trying to spin that narrative without success because of the desire of certain members of Team Good Guy to preserve the Team narrative. There are Necromancers who are not Pro-Zombie-Up-Go-After-Theren. They don't need Lore backing -- they already have it. They need other people to let them forge the narrative they choose for their characters. You want a more nuanced option to roleplay with a Necromancer? Here's a starting point. What happened if your butcher/baker/significant other/neighbor happened to be a Necromancer? What conversations would you have while you're in opposition? How would you interact with a Necromancer who's zombie-out in War Mode vs a guy your local gossip says might be a Necromancer?
"Nobody cares about the feasibility of Sidhlot's portrayal of evil. That's not the point. He's older than dragons and so metal he poops viking helmets." - Armifer
"That is so not how magic works." -Raesh
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu-proxy R'lyeh
>>What happens when a necromancer transcends?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq3abPnEEGE
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq3abPnEEGE
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
Risen are the primary dev focus of Necros at the moment, along with misc. spells as I'm inspired to make them.
Advanced States I want to push on in order of accessibility (Redeemed, Lichdom, then Transcendence) after Risen, but we'll see where we end up. Right now I'm inclined to think Necromancers need some cool spells more than the states, but my mind changes frequently on that front.
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
Advanced States I want to push on in order of accessibility (Redeemed, Lichdom, then Transcendence) after Risen, but we'll see where we end up. Right now I'm inclined to think Necromancers need some cool spells more than the states, but my mind changes frequently on that front.
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
I am both relieved and disappointed that Armifer's link was not this.
https://youtu.be/SiMHTK15Pik
- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -
https://youtu.be/SiMHTK15Pik
- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -
>Many on the "Team Good Guy" side choose to deliberately ignore it.
I don't know that that is the case. I think a lot of people's only known interactions with Necros are with the Lazzos of the world, so they don't know anything else.
>How would you interact with a Necromancer who's zombie-out in War Mode vs a guy your local gossip says might be a Necromancer?
This thread happens a lot to me as someone in a militia - my usual course is "find more concrete evidence than word of mouth", usually via roleplaying with the person. Sometimes it's a lot of fun, but I admit it is frustrating sometimes - for every instance of "I appreciate the RP and that you are cool with your character not knowing even though you know as a player" I have a "OMG why are you investigating me, there's no way you could know I am a necro". Sometimes I think it comes down to players (on both sides) not wanting to "lose", when really, when nobody is having fun, everybody loses.
- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -
I don't know that that is the case. I think a lot of people's only known interactions with Necros are with the Lazzos of the world, so they don't know anything else.
>How would you interact with a Necromancer who's zombie-out in War Mode vs a guy your local gossip says might be a Necromancer?
This thread happens a lot to me as someone in a militia - my usual course is "find more concrete evidence than word of mouth", usually via roleplaying with the person. Sometimes it's a lot of fun, but I admit it is frustrating sometimes - for every instance of "I appreciate the RP and that you are cool with your character not knowing even though you know as a player" I have a "OMG why are you investigating me, there's no way you could know I am a necro". Sometimes I think it comes down to players (on both sides) not wanting to "lose", when really, when nobody is having fun, everybody loses.
- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -
>What happened if your butcher/baker/significant other/neighbor happened to be a Necromancer? What conversations would you have while you're in opposition?
The answer to this, for my character, depends on the situation - are they for sure a necro, or just runored to be?
If rumored, he would investigate and find evidence one way or another - lives are too valuable to be taken over rumors and hearsay.
If he definitively knew someone he cared for was one, well...sucks for that person and I guess him to a lesser degree. Starlear hates necromancers a lot more than he loves anything or anyone. There would be no ensuing discussion as far as he was concerned, only cleansing fire.
- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -
The answer to this, for my character, depends on the situation - are they for sure a necro, or just runored to be?
If rumored, he would investigate and find evidence one way or another - lives are too valuable to be taken over rumors and hearsay.
If he definitively knew someone he cared for was one, well...sucks for that person and I guess him to a lesser degree. Starlear hates necromancers a lot more than he loves anything or anyone. There would be no ensuing discussion as far as he was concerned, only cleansing fire.
- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -
>What happens when a necromancer transcends?
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq3abPnEEGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH_CcJ-uBWI
Ehhhhhh???? Riiiiiiiiiiight? Or is that Empaths?
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq3abPnEEGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH_CcJ-uBWI
Ehhhhhh???? Riiiiiiiiiiight? Or is that Empaths?
I still say it goes back to insanely limiting lore built around player necros.
By putting them in the place they are... the RP 'can' be pretty awesome.. but in actuality it rarely is. They are the bad guys because they are the bad guys. Look at Starlear's post. If they are necros... ignore anything and everything else about the character... buuuurn.
That is lame. That is boring. There is zero fun there... especially for the necro.
The entire guild needs to be retconned into something that is actually playable and interact-able with the rest of the game. Because at the end of the day, this is a multiplayer online game... and the entire point is to interact with others. And frankly if the only way you can interact post-coming out is by being the evil bad guy... it becomes super boring.
You don't have to toss it all out.. but any changes at an IC level to tone down the insta-hate would go a looong ways. Maybe focus on the Marstan types.. Necros that did help save the world. Create a plot point where some necros are needed to work with the moonies to prevent some total collapse of something or other and afterwards even the gods say that unless they go super perverse... to let them be... etc etc etc.
Lots of ways to do it and then let Necromancers be part of the community.. a watched and barely tolerated one... but still part.. and it would improve the playability and interactability of the guild immensely.
Also.. if there was a vote.. I would bump states and paths to jump to spot number 1 even over risen. And spells can stay third.. a far third after the first two are done and polished.
By putting them in the place they are... the RP 'can' be pretty awesome.. but in actuality it rarely is. They are the bad guys because they are the bad guys. Look at Starlear's post. If they are necros... ignore anything and everything else about the character... buuuurn.
That is lame. That is boring. There is zero fun there... especially for the necro.
The entire guild needs to be retconned into something that is actually playable and interact-able with the rest of the game. Because at the end of the day, this is a multiplayer online game... and the entire point is to interact with others. And frankly if the only way you can interact post-coming out is by being the evil bad guy... it becomes super boring.
You don't have to toss it all out.. but any changes at an IC level to tone down the insta-hate would go a looong ways. Maybe focus on the Marstan types.. Necros that did help save the world. Create a plot point where some necros are needed to work with the moonies to prevent some total collapse of something or other and afterwards even the gods say that unless they go super perverse... to let them be... etc etc etc.
Lots of ways to do it and then let Necromancers be part of the community.. a watched and barely tolerated one... but still part.. and it would improve the playability and interactability of the guild immensely.
Also.. if there was a vote.. I would bump states and paths to jump to spot number 1 even over risen. And spells can stay third.. a far third after the first two are done and polished.
I would like to see some additional gray area to the lore that marks Necromancers as more than just cosmically wrong, knowledgeable that they're wrong and quitting the game altogether, or Kefka. You can want to subvert the paradigm without wanting to burn it all to the ground.
>Also.. if there was a vote.. I would bump states and paths to jump to spot number 1 even over risen. And spells can stay third.. a far third after the first two are done and polished.
If we're opening discussion of priority - I care almost nothing about states of being, don't know enough about what is planned for Risen, and significantly think we could use some more spells.
>>Also.. if there was a vote.. I would bump states and paths to jump to spot number 1 even over risen. And spells can stay third.. a far third after the first two are done and polished.
I was starting to make a similar post. I could make arguments for either risen or states of being sounding more interesting as a first release but needing new spells hardly ever crosses my mind.
I was starting to make a similar post. I could make arguments for either risen or states of being sounding more interesting as a first release but needing new spells hardly ever crosses my mind.
>That is lame. That is boring. There is zero fun there... especially for the necro.
To be fair, the only time it would definitively get to that point would be for the character to cast necromancy jn front of my character and even then, you could probably get me to respond to a "I was just experimenting with this scroll I found" kind of way.
I'll get you clean in magic rehab, I swears.
- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -
To be fair, the only time it would definitively get to that point would be for the character to cast necromancy jn front of my character and even then, you could probably get me to respond to a "I was just experimenting with this scroll I found" kind of way.
I'll get you clean in magic rehab, I swears.
- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -
The problem with that is that you get into a mindless parody of Good and Evil as teams. The Evil Guy goes hunting and then deposits money at the Evil Bank before ML'ing forging at the Evil Society Hall and going to the Evil Gathering Spot to have Evil Tea with their Evil Friends.
I've been adamantly against creating a "mirror image" concept of evil for that reason. Give me an idea for an evil civilization which doesn't devolve into football and I will try to change my mind.
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
I've been adamantly against creating a "mirror image" concept of evil for that reason. Give me an idea for an evil civilization which doesn't devolve into football and I will try to change my mind.
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
The society we have already works well that way. As it is, the vast majority of 'heroes' in this game are far more destructive and 'evil' than any necromancer. They just have better Public Relations.
Make Necromancers not all immediately bad, and let players interact with them to find out who the baddies are, just like they have to do with any other guild, and it works. Even if there is more suspicion upon necros to begin with.
The problem is this concept of 'hardcore' - which really doesn't exist, and this idea that player necromancers are supposed to be the antagonists.. which again.. really doesn't work in a multiplayer online game. If you are just labeled the bad guy from the start.. you have no room to go anywhere.
Make Necromancers not all immediately bad, and let players interact with them to find out who the baddies are, just like they have to do with any other guild, and it works. Even if there is more suspicion upon necros to begin with.
The problem is this concept of 'hardcore' - which really doesn't exist, and this idea that player necromancers are supposed to be the antagonists.. which again.. really doesn't work in a multiplayer online game. If you are just labeled the bad guy from the start.. you have no room to go anywhere.
We do not intend to have any large scale retcons of the guild's lore or continuing story. If you find yourself very much at odds with the lore, story, theme or direction of the Necromancers, I can only recommend not playing one.
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
We are already teams. We have necromancers, and everyone else which includes the saintly as well as serial murderers, thieves, hooligans, sorcerers to a degree, and those that frequently endanger the public. NPC Game society (and even players) doesn't care about any of that except necromancy, a fine and its all forgiven instantly (except maybe larger fines, but really).
I guess technically there doesn't even need to be a true evil society like bone elves, perhaps a culture exists that seeks knowledge in all forms and doesn't worship the Gods. Within their walls most anything is permitted, and their walls apparently are strong enough to deter the other kingdoms from a prolonged campaign so long as they stay where they are.
I am just weary of thinking the enemy of my enemy is my friend in regards to necromancers(murderer, raise dead, blasphemy gods, cavort with demons, and damage all creation) which would seem akin to prison social structures where murders and rapists of women brutalize murderers and rapists of children due to some twisted moral ideal.
A redeemed state would be nice, but I might be the only one in the game currently playing a necromancer that's seeking redemption.
Taking stock of its defensive abilities, and attacking with a book of apprentice carving instructions, you are certain that the dire bear is a truly skilled opponent.
Taking stock of its defensive abilities, and attacking with a book of apprentice carving instructions, you are certain that the dire bear is a truly skilled opponent.
My necromancer is not seeking redemption, but they are also not looking to challenge the gods or major political powers. They have maintained a low enough profile to even attend public events thrown by staff and various orders, so either they are mostly unknown or not hated enough that being there causes a scene. Only about 30 ranks of skinning from the reqs for 100, so soon everyone will get the message of their being struck down by the gods and all will probably change.
>>We are already teams. We have necromancers, and everyone else which includes the saintly as well as serial murderers, thieves, hooligans, sorcerers to a degree, and those that frequently endanger the public. NPC Game society (and even players) doesn't care about any of that except necromancy, a fine and its all forgiven instantly (except maybe larger fines, but really).
Teams imply fair, coordinated play. What we have now is Necromancers vs. Everyone Else, where the Necromancers are driven from desirable things and persecuted by the other PCs... which is, coincidentally, exactly what I've repeatedly promised.
I'm not trying to say there can be no improvement, but demands for large scale changes to the guild's lore and the difficulty of roleplaying a Necromancer are not likely to gain traction.
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
Teams imply fair, coordinated play. What we have now is Necromancers vs. Everyone Else, where the Necromancers are driven from desirable things and persecuted by the other PCs... which is, coincidentally, exactly what I've repeatedly promised.
I'm not trying to say there can be no improvement, but demands for large scale changes to the guild's lore and the difficulty of roleplaying a Necromancer are not likely to gain traction.
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
<<Reposting with an edit. Sorry DR-Helje!
Thank you for reposting!
Helje
DragonRealms Senior Board Moderator
If you have a question about the forums, please email me Senior Board Moderator Helje at DR-Helje@play.net or Message Board Supervisor Annwyl at DR-Annwyl@play.net
Thank you for reposting!
Helje
DragonRealms Senior Board Moderator
If you have a question about the forums, please email me Senior Board Moderator Helje at DR-Helje@play.net or Message Board Supervisor Annwyl at DR-Annwyl@play.net
Personally, I'm happy to hear Risen are closer on the horizon then redeemed. That way, I'll get to test one out before choosing to become a gimped, survival-prime warmage.
Taking stock of its defensive abilities, and attacking with a book of apprentice carving instructions, you are certain that the dire bear is a truly skilled opponent.
Taking stock of its defensive abilities, and attacking with a book of apprentice carving instructions, you are certain that the dire bear is a truly skilled opponent.
>Society actually loses quite a lot by eradicating sentient participants from existence.
The trouble is Necromancers threaten to eradicate existence itself as a byproduct of just existing as Necromancers -- not exactly true but pretty solidly cemented in the player consciousness because Lyras.
I was once really into a game where you could play a persecuted mage, but it worked a lot more dynamically because it had 1) permadeth so burning a mage at the stake had an actual resolution and effect on the game-state, 2) paranoid moral ambiguity in that no one was sure if mages were actually in the wrong or not (there were strong hints in both directions) whereas Elanthia has reproduceable scientific proof that necromancers are evil.
Necromancers very cool and very fun for a few months, then there's nothing more for either side to do so you forget about the whole thing and move on to something more dynamic.
>Forgive my snark, but welcome to the life of a warrior mage.
The trouble is Necromancers threaten to eradicate existence itself as a byproduct of just existing as Necromancers -- not exactly true but pretty solidly cemented in the player consciousness because Lyras.
I was once really into a game where you could play a persecuted mage, but it worked a lot more dynamically because it had 1) permadeth so burning a mage at the stake had an actual resolution and effect on the game-state, 2) paranoid moral ambiguity in that no one was sure if mages were actually in the wrong or not (there were strong hints in both directions) whereas Elanthia has reproduceable scientific proof that necromancers are evil.
Necromancers very cool and very fun for a few months, then there's nothing more for either side to do so you forget about the whole thing and move on to something more dynamic.
>Forgive my snark, but welcome to the life of a warrior mage.
>>If he definitively knew someone he cared for was one, well...sucks for that person and I guess him to a lesser degree. Starlear hates necromancers a lot more than he loves anything or anyone. There would be no ensuing discussion as far as he was concerned, only cleansing fire.
You can hate someone without instant killing. You can utterly feel loathe and contempt for them without instant killing. You can do all sorts of things that are oppositional without instant killing. You're also complaining that there are no gradients in the ethics of Necromancers, but then choosing to ignore the gradients that exist, and go straight to killing.
There are Necromancers that, now, without a Lore retcon, and without actually having a mechanically Redeemed state, seek Redemption -- that do not summon Zombies, and are only Necromancers in guild-only. Under current mechanics, without Redemption, they are just as Forsaken as anyone else. Similarly, there are Necromancers that, now, without Lichdom, seek to maximize DO, and Zombie-up all the time. And then there are the Philosophers that waver between the two, and all "cleansing fire" does is push them toward the latter. There's actually a reason not to kill people that adhere to the Philosophy on sight if you care about whether or not in the future they do more to not only mess with the Divine, but welcome the Hunger in in order to fight back. That's all under current Lore, with no retcons, no changes, and no developments. As a concrete example, my character is a Philosopher that has leanings toward Redemption, but if you back him into a corner and just start attacking, he's going to start considering Zombie-ing up where he normally does not even when it'd be safe to do so, as he frowns on giving the Hunger what it wants and normally is rather outspoken about opposing the Perverse.
Remember, the more Necrotoys a Necro uses, the happier the Hunger is. Make a Necro want to play with Necrotoys, and you're inadvertently helping the Hunger. Plus, you're backing them into a corner and giving them nothing to lose.
No lore retcons or changes are necessary in order for you to have a logical reason for an anti-Hunger paragon to acknowledge gradients that allow you to actually roleplay a more complex and satisfying interaction than typing attack.
Cue star and rainbow. The more you know.
"Nobody cares about the feasibility of Sidhlot's portrayal of evil. That's not the point. He's older than dragons and so metal he poops viking helmets." - Armifer
"That is so not how magic works." -Raesh
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu-proxy R'lyeh
You can hate someone without instant killing. You can utterly feel loathe and contempt for them without instant killing. You can do all sorts of things that are oppositional without instant killing. You're also complaining that there are no gradients in the ethics of Necromancers, but then choosing to ignore the gradients that exist, and go straight to killing.
There are Necromancers that, now, without a Lore retcon, and without actually having a mechanically Redeemed state, seek Redemption -- that do not summon Zombies, and are only Necromancers in guild-only. Under current mechanics, without Redemption, they are just as Forsaken as anyone else. Similarly, there are Necromancers that, now, without Lichdom, seek to maximize DO, and Zombie-up all the time. And then there are the Philosophers that waver between the two, and all "cleansing fire" does is push them toward the latter. There's actually a reason not to kill people that adhere to the Philosophy on sight if you care about whether or not in the future they do more to not only mess with the Divine, but welcome the Hunger in in order to fight back. That's all under current Lore, with no retcons, no changes, and no developments. As a concrete example, my character is a Philosopher that has leanings toward Redemption, but if you back him into a corner and just start attacking, he's going to start considering Zombie-ing up where he normally does not even when it'd be safe to do so, as he frowns on giving the Hunger what it wants and normally is rather outspoken about opposing the Perverse.
Remember, the more Necrotoys a Necro uses, the happier the Hunger is. Make a Necro want to play with Necrotoys, and you're inadvertently helping the Hunger. Plus, you're backing them into a corner and giving them nothing to lose.
No lore retcons or changes are necessary in order for you to have a logical reason for an anti-Hunger paragon to acknowledge gradients that allow you to actually roleplay a more complex and satisfying interaction than typing attack.
Cue star and rainbow. The more you know.
"Nobody cares about the feasibility of Sidhlot's portrayal of evil. That's not the point. He's older than dragons and so metal he poops viking helmets." - Armifer
"That is so not how magic works." -Raesh
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu-proxy R'lyeh
Edited to rephrase a sentence to be more true.
>> The trouble is Necromancers threaten to eradicate existence itself as a byproduct of just existing as Necromancers -- not exactly true but pretty solidly cemented in the player consciousness because Lyras.
A Necromancer who is not currently playing with Trans or Animation spells is a Necromancer who isn't inciting any more Divine Outrage than they passively have just for existing, and thus by definition is not helping the Hunger as much as it otherwise might -- with the testing I've done with my character, there's actually a huge breadth of DO that my character could get, and his base is only a tiny fraction of that. Initiating combat increases the odds that they may change their mind about currently playing with Trans or Animation spells, and especially increasing the odds that they'll use SRE.
If my character were on the side of the Inquisitors, I'd likely have my character try to convince all Necromancers to pick up knitting, because the gods are A-Okay with knitting. It's more effective than killing them as long as the Profane Aegis is intact, and that should be evident after witnessing a single Necromancer die and not walk.
"Nobody cares about the feasibility of Sidhlot's portrayal of evil. That's not the point. He's older than dragons and so metal he poops viking helmets." - Armifer
"That is so not how magic works." -Raesh
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu-proxy R'lyeh
>> The trouble is Necromancers threaten to eradicate existence itself as a byproduct of just existing as Necromancers -- not exactly true but pretty solidly cemented in the player consciousness because Lyras.
A Necromancer who is not currently playing with Trans or Animation spells is a Necromancer who isn't inciting any more Divine Outrage than they passively have just for existing, and thus by definition is not helping the Hunger as much as it otherwise might -- with the testing I've done with my character, there's actually a huge breadth of DO that my character could get, and his base is only a tiny fraction of that. Initiating combat increases the odds that they may change their mind about currently playing with Trans or Animation spells, and especially increasing the odds that they'll use SRE.
If my character were on the side of the Inquisitors, I'd likely have my character try to convince all Necromancers to pick up knitting, because the gods are A-Okay with knitting. It's more effective than killing them as long as the Profane Aegis is intact, and that should be evident after witnessing a single Necromancer die and not walk.
"Nobody cares about the feasibility of Sidhlot's portrayal of evil. That's not the point. He's older than dragons and so metal he poops viking helmets." - Armifer
"That is so not how magic works." -Raesh
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu-proxy R'lyeh
>> thread
Really amazing discussions in this thread. I came back 45+ posts. Great reads. Sounds like we all just need a little bit more chatter and less swords. Of course, swords are always the end, because necromancers are evil. But, its always worth exploring a conversation. Especially if someone isn't currently out. Investigation is fun.
>> I've been adamantly against creating a "mirror image" concept of evil for that reason. Give me an idea for an evil civilization which doesn't devolve into football and I will try to change my mind.
>> We do not intend to have any large scale retcons of the guild's lore or continuing story. If you find yourself very much at odds with the lore, story, theme or direction of the Necromancers, I can only recommend not playing one.
Thank you. Necromancers are in a really unique place right now which is really great. I'd hate to see them devolve into as you, stated, some sort of evil tea party. The constant tension puts an entire new element that you really can't experience with any other character.
And I agree, if people don't like the guild, there are other characters to play.
Really amazing discussions in this thread. I came back 45+ posts. Great reads. Sounds like we all just need a little bit more chatter and less swords. Of course, swords are always the end, because necromancers are evil. But, its always worth exploring a conversation. Especially if someone isn't currently out. Investigation is fun.
>> I've been adamantly against creating a "mirror image" concept of evil for that reason. Give me an idea for an evil civilization which doesn't devolve into football and I will try to change my mind.
>> We do not intend to have any large scale retcons of the guild's lore or continuing story. If you find yourself very much at odds with the lore, story, theme or direction of the Necromancers, I can only recommend not playing one.
Thank you. Necromancers are in a really unique place right now which is really great. I'd hate to see them devolve into as you, stated, some sort of evil tea party. The constant tension puts an entire new element that you really can't experience with any other character.
And I agree, if people don't like the guild, there are other characters to play.
>> thread
And for what's its worth, I think others being able to engage Necromancers in evil stuff is a great way to bring "RP" in, without making it a tea party. There have been a number of suggestions in the thread.
I'm a believer that RP follows mechanics so any mechanics that can encourage that behavior is A+. I really like the idea of necromancers having evil toys that other players can use. Such as artifacts, enchanting ingredients, alchemy ingredients, spells, services, etc. Anything where a player has to seek out a necromancer.
CAVEAT: These mechanics can't be simply "buy/get/attend" and it's over. There has to be some sort of mechanics attached to the interacting player that allow OTHER players to see the connection or it will turn into an evil tea party. For example, if a player wants to obtain a rare enchanting ingredient that only necromancers can make, that applys a necromantic life drain to a weapon, that weapon should probably generate messages that make other players know its necromancy. It should also probably make people accusable for forbidden practices, and/or add SO timers.
Or, if a necromancer had some sort of service... lets say, accelerated spell unlearning. (Which is a freaking idea :P.) Skill could determine how accurate a necromancer would be at stabbing the players brain to unlearn a spell. Maybe by spellbook only with random chance of hitting the right spell.
So, potential ramifications. DO could be added to the player, instant smite on the player, SO, atmos relating to tainted magic during a certain timer, backlash chances for their OWN magic. All this stuff are things that have mechanics and that other players could investigate and be like, "Why you hanging out with necromancers?" Also, it would be hilarious and amazing RP to see a cleric get instant DO smited by a god because they sought out a necromancer to unlearn a few spells. They would have a long time trying to convince people they weren't a necromancer, and a long time roleplaying why they were seeking out and allowing a necromancer to fiddle with their brains.
Please. :)
Going to snip your responses and reply to the relevant bits.
> Society actually loses quite a lot by eradicating sentient participants from existence. The Knife not only is an apt metaphor of the delicate balancing act Necromancers have to do, but the one an Inquisitor must perform, as well. The struggle to maintain humanity while performing monstrous acts and/or fighting monsters is a difficult one. To adequately combat the Hunger, simply killing mortals just doesn't work. So an Inquisitor needs to learn things Man Was Not Meant to Know, and do things to other humans that are, plainly, just as horrific as the acts performed by Necromancers. Torture and the murder of innocents are simply tools in a proper Inquisitorial toolbox. See: Khurek, as well as the Hounds of Rutilor -- or, heck, look at Kigot.
> You can hate someone without instant killing. You can utterly feel loathe and contempt for them without instant killing. You can do all sorts of things that are oppositional without instant killing. You're also complaining that there are no gradients in the ethics of Necromancers, but then choosing to ignore the gradients that exist, and go straight to killing.
> There's actually a reason not to kill people that adhere to the Philosophy on sight if you care about whether or not in the future they do more to not only mess with the Divine, but welcome the Hunger in in order to fight back. That's all under current Lore, with no retcons, no changes, and no developments
I'm not saying you're actually wrong here, but I don't think it's realistic for ANY of our characters to know this stuff. Maybe a GM will tell me differently, but my impression is that the number of people in the game world (not just players) who 1) are not necromancers, 2) know all these things, and 3) have enough knowledge and wisdom to accept these things can probably be counted on one hand, if there are even ANY.
I mean, on the forums, we have all of these lore posts. And yes, especially if you play a scholarly character, you can choose to have the character know a A LOT of this stuff. But I try to draw the line at things that are deliberately pushed in a certain way. The story about the carrots Armifer posted and others are presented as... more secret knowledge? The kind that only a Necromancer would have? I try to be cautious about incorporating knowledge my character ought not to know. If there were some sort of lore post put forward as being an Inquisitorial work, or something of the like, I could incorporate that. But Necromancers are deliberately supposed to be secretive.
It's cool that I know this stuff, but I can't necessarily give it to my character. At BEST, if my character is a scholar, I could comb through the visions given to Moon Mages for clues, but certainly we're not going to claim that what you can find out from that ought to be common knowledge, are we?
Here's my understanding of what most people in the game world have:
1) Lyras was horrible and killed a bunch of people.
2) Moon mages got visions about the destruction of the world related to Necromancy.
3) Necromancers have never done anything visible that has even tangentially benefited society as a whole.
Looking at it from that perspective, as Starlear was saying, there really is no upside to doing anything but burning them at the stake. From a purely tactical perspective, they're AT BEST a risk with no upsides. Given that these things are the main common knowledge, and for people who LIVED through the Lyras conflict, it becomes really difficult to see a reason to even question the Temple orthodoxy, much less have the information to pose a counter-argument.
Please, help me see where I'm getting mixed up here, if I am.
> Society actually loses quite a lot by eradicating sentient participants from existence. The Knife not only is an apt metaphor of the delicate balancing act Necromancers have to do, but the one an Inquisitor must perform, as well. The struggle to maintain humanity while performing monstrous acts and/or fighting monsters is a difficult one. To adequately combat the Hunger, simply killing mortals just doesn't work. So an Inquisitor needs to learn things Man Was Not Meant to Know, and do things to other humans that are, plainly, just as horrific as the acts performed by Necromancers. Torture and the murder of innocents are simply tools in a proper Inquisitorial toolbox. See: Khurek, as well as the Hounds of Rutilor -- or, heck, look at Kigot.
> You can hate someone without instant killing. You can utterly feel loathe and contempt for them without instant killing. You can do all sorts of things that are oppositional without instant killing. You're also complaining that there are no gradients in the ethics of Necromancers, but then choosing to ignore the gradients that exist, and go straight to killing.
> There's actually a reason not to kill people that adhere to the Philosophy on sight if you care about whether or not in the future they do more to not only mess with the Divine, but welcome the Hunger in in order to fight back. That's all under current Lore, with no retcons, no changes, and no developments
I'm not saying you're actually wrong here, but I don't think it's realistic for ANY of our characters to know this stuff. Maybe a GM will tell me differently, but my impression is that the number of people in the game world (not just players) who 1) are not necromancers, 2) know all these things, and 3) have enough knowledge and wisdom to accept these things can probably be counted on one hand, if there are even ANY.
I mean, on the forums, we have all of these lore posts. And yes, especially if you play a scholarly character, you can choose to have the character know a A LOT of this stuff. But I try to draw the line at things that are deliberately pushed in a certain way. The story about the carrots Armifer posted and others are presented as... more secret knowledge? The kind that only a Necromancer would have? I try to be cautious about incorporating knowledge my character ought not to know. If there were some sort of lore post put forward as being an Inquisitorial work, or something of the like, I could incorporate that. But Necromancers are deliberately supposed to be secretive.
It's cool that I know this stuff, but I can't necessarily give it to my character. At BEST, if my character is a scholar, I could comb through the visions given to Moon Mages for clues, but certainly we're not going to claim that what you can find out from that ought to be common knowledge, are we?
Here's my understanding of what most people in the game world have:
1) Lyras was horrible and killed a bunch of people.
2) Moon mages got visions about the destruction of the world related to Necromancy.
3) Necromancers have never done anything visible that has even tangentially benefited society as a whole.
Looking at it from that perspective, as Starlear was saying, there really is no upside to doing anything but burning them at the stake. From a purely tactical perspective, they're AT BEST a risk with no upsides. Given that these things are the main common knowledge, and for people who LIVED through the Lyras conflict, it becomes really difficult to see a reason to even question the Temple orthodoxy, much less have the information to pose a counter-argument.
Please, help me see where I'm getting mixed up here, if I am.
The trick becomes balancing offering IC "hooks" for people who aren't on team bad guy but want reasons to roleplay with Necromancer PCs beyond pitchforks and torches with the atmosphere of persecution and not compromising the canon that yes, Necromancers are objectively evil in-setting and are doing some pretty awful things.
Because Armifer's naturally right, Necromancers are persecuted and reviled, this isn't changing, and it's important to understand that (almost) none of us want that to stop being the case. The balancing act, the paranoia, and the constant tension is part of my personal draw to the guild and what makes it really interesting for me to play. I'd be bummed if something freaky happened and suddenly Necromancers could go be buddies with normal people. What we're advocating for is more footholds to draw in the community and for the community to allow themselves to be drawn in to more diverse roleplaying situations where maybe they're not happy about the Necromancer in their midst but they have some reason not to just light up the torches right away. This seems to be something that both sides really want, and I think this thread has had some great suggestions and feedback in it surrounding this so far.
>> A redeemed state would be nice, but I might be the only one in the game currently playing a necromancer that's seeking redemption.
I have Plans for a Redemption arc for my character FWIW, but she (and the supporting mechanics) are not quite there yet. I am really looking forward to the state of being stuff being expanded though.
>> The trouble is Necromancers threaten to eradicate existence itself as a byproduct of just existing as Necromancers -- not exactly true but pretty solidly cemented in the player consciousness because Lyras.
While we OOCly as players know demons are playing silly buggers with the Philosophers, and the idea of "Necromancer = world-ending demonic power + utter sociopathic monster" is cemented in regular society ICly due to Lyras et al., Philosophers themselves adamantly insist this is not the case and many Philosophers (mine included) have no reason at present to suspect they are wrong about this as opposed to it merely being an incorrect if justified perception on the part of the public.
So if you want one foothold, there is one. If your PC happens to find out their buddy is a Philosopher, maybe your PC can listen to what they have to say about the Philosopher party line regarding demons and demonic magic. Perhaps they can in fact convince your dude, at least temporarily, that #notallneccies. You're still left with the myriad theological issues, but those are frequently easier to work around depending on how reverend a particular PC is.
Thayet
Follow @thayelf on Twitter for absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever!
Because Armifer's naturally right, Necromancers are persecuted and reviled, this isn't changing, and it's important to understand that (almost) none of us want that to stop being the case. The balancing act, the paranoia, and the constant tension is part of my personal draw to the guild and what makes it really interesting for me to play. I'd be bummed if something freaky happened and suddenly Necromancers could go be buddies with normal people. What we're advocating for is more footholds to draw in the community and for the community to allow themselves to be drawn in to more diverse roleplaying situations where maybe they're not happy about the Necromancer in their midst but they have some reason not to just light up the torches right away. This seems to be something that both sides really want, and I think this thread has had some great suggestions and feedback in it surrounding this so far.
>> A redeemed state would be nice, but I might be the only one in the game currently playing a necromancer that's seeking redemption.
I have Plans for a Redemption arc for my character FWIW, but she (and the supporting mechanics) are not quite there yet. I am really looking forward to the state of being stuff being expanded though.
>> The trouble is Necromancers threaten to eradicate existence itself as a byproduct of just existing as Necromancers -- not exactly true but pretty solidly cemented in the player consciousness because Lyras.
While we OOCly as players know demons are playing silly buggers with the Philosophers, and the idea of "Necromancer = world-ending demonic power + utter sociopathic monster" is cemented in regular society ICly due to Lyras et al., Philosophers themselves adamantly insist this is not the case and many Philosophers (mine included) have no reason at present to suspect they are wrong about this as opposed to it merely being an incorrect if justified perception on the part of the public.
So if you want one foothold, there is one. If your PC happens to find out their buddy is a Philosopher, maybe your PC can listen to what they have to say about the Philosopher party line regarding demons and demonic magic. Perhaps they can in fact convince your dude, at least temporarily, that #notallneccies. You're still left with the myriad theological issues, but those are frequently easier to work around depending on how reverend a particular PC is.
Thayet
Follow @thayelf on Twitter for absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever!
>>I'm not saying you're actually wrong here, but I don't think it's realistic for ANY of our characters to know this stuff.
I agree, to a certain extent. At least, at release of the guild. Since then, I've seen dozens of people discussing it in detail on the Gweth (both Necromancers and not), and seen a few would-be Inquisitors spout from it in-game. Since metagaming's already happened pretty broadly, I'd say that cat's kind of been let out of the bag, and pragmatically, I'm fine with that if it allows players that feel constrained in their RP to expand in a way they currently feel is inappropriate to their character, if it means improving the playing community.
"Nobody cares about the feasibility of Sidhlot's portrayal of evil. That's not the point. He's older than dragons and so metal he poops viking helmets." - Armifer
"That is so not how magic works." -Raesh
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu-proxy R'lyeh
I agree, to a certain extent. At least, at release of the guild. Since then, I've seen dozens of people discussing it in detail on the Gweth (both Necromancers and not), and seen a few would-be Inquisitors spout from it in-game. Since metagaming's already happened pretty broadly, I'd say that cat's kind of been let out of the bag, and pragmatically, I'm fine with that if it allows players that feel constrained in their RP to expand in a way they currently feel is inappropriate to their character, if it means improving the playing community.
"Nobody cares about the feasibility of Sidhlot's portrayal of evil. That's not the point. He's older than dragons and so metal he poops viking helmets." - Armifer
"That is so not how magic works." -Raesh
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu-proxy R'lyeh
>>If he definitively knew someone he cared for was one, well...sucks for that person and I guess him to a lesser degree. Starlear hates necromancers a lot more than he loves anything or anyone. There would be no ensuing discussion as far as he was concerned, only cleansing fire.
Are you sure about that? Starlear has had a number of conversations with Shatteringwave in the full knowledge he was a neccie back before his accident when he thought he was the chosen messiah of Elanthia.
Taking stock of its defensive abilities, and attacking with a book of apprentice carving instructions, you are certain that the dire bear is a truly skilled opponent.
Are you sure about that? Starlear has had a number of conversations with Shatteringwave in the full knowledge he was a neccie back before his accident when he thought he was the chosen messiah of Elanthia.
Taking stock of its defensive abilities, and attacking with a book of apprentice carving instructions, you are certain that the dire bear is a truly skilled opponent.
>You can hate someone without instant killing. You can utterly feel loathe and contempt for them without instant killing. You can do all sorts of things that are oppositional without instant killing.
You can avoid instant killing by doing literally any roleplay aside from casting necromantic spells in front of my character. Anything except "I saw you do it with my own eyes" is possibly open to "maybe I'm missing something" interpretation.
For the record, I dislike PvP so it's almost always my absolute last course of action if any other options are available.
- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -
You can avoid instant killing by doing literally any roleplay aside from casting necromantic spells in front of my character. Anything except "I saw you do it with my own eyes" is possibly open to "maybe I'm missing something" interpretation.
For the record, I dislike PvP so it's almost always my absolute last course of action if any other options are available.
- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -
>> You can avoid instant killing by doing literally any roleplay aside from casting necromantic spells in front of my character. Anything except "I saw you do it with my own eyes" is possibly open to "maybe I'm missing something" interpretation.
Oh, good! I'm quite pleased that I had misunderstood what you said, then.
"Nobody cares about the feasibility of Sidhlot's portrayal of evil. That's not the point. He's older than dragons and so metal he poops viking helmets." - Armifer
"That is so not how magic works." -Raesh
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu-proxy R'lyeh
Oh, good! I'm quite pleased that I had misunderstood what you said, then.
"Nobody cares about the feasibility of Sidhlot's portrayal of evil. That's not the point. He's older than dragons and so metal he poops viking helmets." - Armifer
"That is so not how magic works." -Raesh
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu-proxy R'lyeh
For the record, I'm also not sure Necromancers qualify as TEAM evil.
>accuse <necromancer> necromancy
The Baronial guardsman makes a motion to a compatriot, who quickly moves out. A few minutes later, the companion comes back, nodding. The guardsman looks at you thankfully and says, "A practitioner of necromancy is a serious affair, thank you for helping us out with this."
The Baronial guardsman adds, "Here's a little something for your trouble." You are handed a small pouch of coins.
You feel like helping toss <Necromancer> to the wolves will take some heat off yourself.
Taking stock of its defensive abilities, and attacking with a book of apprentice carving instructions, you are certain that the dire bear is a truly skilled opponent.
>accuse <necromancer> necromancy
The Baronial guardsman makes a motion to a compatriot, who quickly moves out. A few minutes later, the companion comes back, nodding. The guardsman looks at you thankfully and says, "A practitioner of necromancy is a serious affair, thank you for helping us out with this."
The Baronial guardsman adds, "Here's a little something for your trouble." You are handed a small pouch of coins.
You feel like helping toss <Necromancer> to the wolves will take some heat off yourself.
Taking stock of its defensive abilities, and attacking with a book of apprentice carving instructions, you are certain that the dire bear is a truly skilled opponent.
