Necromancy?
- Thread starter jomcf11
- Start date
Shandar said:
I don't even want to get started on that. Let's just say the reason I don't play a Sarr anymore involved a Greater Fae Curse along the lines of 'Use No Blades'. Not to mention the idea of telling a race based on predatory cats that the technique of pouncing from behind and knocking the prey out with a blow isn't something they'd do. Because obviously every mother teaching her cubs to hunt is Doing It Wrong.
But on the topic of Necro, I'd say that you're quite right. Everything I've ever read on Ogres points to their hatred being mostly focused on the Undead. Straight up Chaos damage magics might make them feel 'ooky', but are a far cry from creating or controlling the Undead. And given the rationale stretches a lot of MWE's make to justify not giving up a very, very powerful effect grouping in Command, I can see it flying OOG as well, just to avoid hipocrisy.
by the same logic, a High Ogre who hates Necromancers and doesn't see them as "people" could blithely engage in Chaotic combat to destroy them. or, a Dryad sees Necromancers as blight on the Earth, and happily cuts them from the greater "tree" by burning them to smoke with Chaos. or both could decide, after being trounced by Lich after Lich, that the most effective tool for any military campaign is scores of undead; they themselves become a Necromancer in order to purge the world of all NecromancersFearless Leader said:
if we're taking it as read that the Ends are more important than the Means and Rationalization is the byword of the day, there's no reason either race can't use Chaos as they see fit. these are all cultural taboos, not personal prohibitions like a Biata's inability to buy "Read Magic" or Sarr's inability to use blunt weapons
now, sure, it's unlikely. a "good" plot team will bring NPCs outta the woodwork to rain hellfire and damnation (er, dragonfire and obliteration) down on those who are uncovered; but there's no reason individuals couldn't justify the action. point being, saying the person "isn't playing their race correctly" isn't accurate anymore as the rule-change/clarification for Mystics opened the door for every race to "override" their cultural taboos given the right motivation and logical chain
Dreamingfurther
Baron
Basically necromancy mileage will vary wildly depending on how an individual character is played.
In general however Ogre's/Dryad's will be the most anti-necro unless they are SERIOUSLLY f-ed up. Like supper coruppted. Probably the most lenient interpretation you could get away with without special plot for it would be a shamed willingness to ignore necromantic casting going on.
Also Elves are usually against it for more hoity-toity reasons. No one really knows why... But in GENERAL they would go right up there with Ogre's/Dryad's as the top anti-necro folks. <-(just my experience tho)
On the flip side, Dark Elves, Biata, Barbarians, and possibly Sarr are the races I've heard of being the most friendly. And on that note similar to Ogre's, if you ARE a Dark Elf and happen to see another Dark Elf for no overtly political reason running around yelling "omg I'm so going to report all that necromancy strait away..." They are probably somewhat unusual. Seriously, f-ed up post-apocalypse NH dark elves...
Humans are always a wildball, with most of the other races like I said they will fall into character choices rather than race.
But the funny point is, when you really come down to it, tbh necromantic battle magic is only useful on a limited number of things, other than PC killing. Like its wasted on a LOT of monster types... so the lol is, why bother with it when instead of Draining them you can just go strait for a Paralyze...
In general however Ogre's/Dryad's will be the most anti-necro unless they are SERIOUSLLY f-ed up. Like supper coruppted. Probably the most lenient interpretation you could get away with without special plot for it would be a shamed willingness to ignore necromantic casting going on.
Also Elves are usually against it for more hoity-toity reasons. No one really knows why... But in GENERAL they would go right up there with Ogre's/Dryad's as the top anti-necro folks. <-(just my experience tho)
On the flip side, Dark Elves, Biata, Barbarians, and possibly Sarr are the races I've heard of being the most friendly. And on that note similar to Ogre's, if you ARE a Dark Elf and happen to see another Dark Elf for no overtly political reason running around yelling "omg I'm so going to report all that necromancy strait away..." They are probably somewhat unusual. Seriously, f-ed up post-apocalypse NH dark elves...
Humans are always a wildball, with most of the other races like I said they will fall into character choices rather than race.
But the funny point is, when you really come down to it, tbh necromantic battle magic is only useful on a limited number of things, other than PC killing. Like its wasted on a LOT of monster types... so the lol is, why bother with it when instead of Draining them you can just go strait for a Paralyze...
Mike Ventrella
Duke
The distinction is that high ogres and dryads believe that a necromantic spell, in and of itself, corrupts the earth -- even if you throw it at a monster.
A MWE doesn't believe that a charm spell causes any harm by itself -- it's the effect when used to remove free will that bothers them.
A MWE doesn't believe that a charm spell causes any harm by itself -- it's the effect when used to remove free will that bothers them.
Mike Ventrella
Duke
Mobius said:
You are misreading what has been written about MWEs.
Any MWE who does not object to someone casting a spell that take away one's free will is not playing their race properly.
That is NOT the same thing as an MWE objecting to every single Charm spell being cast, even if cast at a rock.
It's really not that complicated! MWEs hate free will being taken away, no matter how it is taken away -- including things that are completely nonmagical, such as slavery and corrupt leaders. If a charming spells does NOT take away free will, then they should not object to it.
Dreamingfurther
Baron
Actually John on this one I have to kind of agree with Mike. There is plenty of room for different ends of the spectrum and variability without strait up BREAKING the standard alignment. I understand why it happens but I think its unfortunate that as soon as something/someone (aka the rulebook) lists things you really shouldn't do, (such as necromantic ogres) that is the one thing people fixate one, forgetting all the various variation you can find without going over that line.Mobius said:
Of course I think its reasonable for a good plot team to be able to do just about anything with careful consideration. HOWEVER the individual posting this thread was asking for the "usual" situations. I would ask that we try to stick to that, rather than now quibbling about possible exceptions after the primary question has been answered. Feel free to say your peace John, I don't mean to cut you or anyone off. I would just ask we consider moving a discussion about something like this to a different place so as to try and reduce the amount of "muddling" that happens on these boards.
jpariury
Duke
MWEs are allowed, within the spectrum of "playing your race correctly", to throw controlling magics at anyone or thing they deem "not a person", based on the new rules for MWEs.
John's argument is that under those auspices, why would it fall under "not playing your race correctly" for dryads to throw necromancy at someone they consider "not part of the natural order"?
John's argument is that under those auspices, why would it fall under "not playing your race correctly" for dryads to throw necromancy at someone they consider "not part of the natural order"?
Dreamingfurther
Baron
Have this "discussion" on another thread please? Seriously I thought ppl agreed it would be good to try and not "confuse" the simple questions...
alright, then i'm very confused for the ARB addenda clearly state the exact opposite of what you're saying: "a Mystic Wood Elf may suffer under the same racial prejudices of any other character and define some creatures, such as goblins or slavers, as "inhuman", and therefore not a violation to enslave them" (ARB Addenda). i interpret that to mean they can enslave (hence cast Commands) at anything they deem "inhuman" (er, ¿inelven?) and hence beneath the proscription against removing free-will. ¿where have i stumbled in my gloss?Fearless Leader said:
BUT, David is right (he so often is), this is straying from the OP's question about racial tendencies. as far as the "average" member of every PC race is concerned, Chaos and Necromancy is bad; there is no singular race who embraces it. my point was that this does not preclude individuals from doing so, nor does it suggest said individuals are "racially inappropriate" they are simply not main-stream
there's a vast gap between race and individual and i wanted to make it clear that tendencies of the former do not prohibit actions from the later (except in case like Biata where it's fundamentally impossible for them to buy "Read Magic"). i was trying to make it clear to the OP that there is nothing "intrinsic" to any race which stops them from casting Chaos beyond that of culture and custom. there is no race "safe" from the temptations of Chaos
Joel Mathis
Artisan
It seems like both races are connected to the land to some extent and casting chaos disrupts the balance within the land. It'd just seem wrong for them to cast necromancy. It's like a barbarian casting celestial, I think. I coulda sworn there was something in the rulebook about playing an insane high ogre that cast chaos and is ruthlessly hunted by his fellows to his permanent death or something....but yeah, it seems like your ogre or dryad has to be pretty cracked mentally for it to work, in my opinion. But them, being insane would be an excuse to get around just about any racial limitation, isn't it?
Mike Ventrella
Duke
jpariury said:
Seriously? You want me to keep repeating myself? OK:
The distinction is that high ogres and dryads believe that a necromantic spell, in and of itself, corrupts the earth -- even if you throw it at a monster.
A MWE doesn't believe that a charm spell causes any harm by itself -- it's the effect when used to remove free will that bothers them.
Mike Ventrella
Duke
Mobius said:
No, you haven't stumbled. We're both saying the same thing in different ways.
Mike Ventrella
Duke
jpariury said:
Sorry, I had just come back from an event when I wrote that and was exhausted and sleep deprived!
Duke Frost
Baron
Mobius said:
This is patently untrue. There are certainly PC races and/or cultures that have no issue with necromancy in general and some that view it as a useful tool. The kingdoms and/or political structures the game takes place in all have issues with it, but not every PC race does.
Scott
Duke Frost said:
i knew there were some NPC races and kingdoms which actively embrace Chaos but didn't know there were PC races who directly condoned it. i skimmed through the Race section but couldn't find any references to a PC race which thinks Chaos is good, ¿would you point out the sections please?
Duke Frost
Baron
Mobius said:
This is a plot issue and a find out in game issue. It isn't spelled right out in the rulebook as it is not a rules issue. Each chapters is responsible for the cultures and societies of their PC races (ie, race packets). As long as they are not going against the racial roleplay restrictions in their rulebook, they are free to write their packets as they like, including having a tribe/city/country/empire/etc. available for PC backgrounds that thinks necro is swell.
Now if you are saying that there is no race REQUIRED by the rules to "embrace" necromancy, that's true. But there are entire racial cultures or nations that do throughout the game in terms of roleplaying.
Scott
oh, i agree. every Chapter is free to write whatever plot they want so long as the "main area" enforces anti-Chaos laws. whether these NPC Kaos-Kosher Kingdoms are the majority or minority for the Chapter totally depends on local plot. when i said every PC race was anti-Chaos i was speaking from the vantage of the place where game usually takes place, but you were right to jump on the discrepancy. given clever writing, anything's possible. heck, i think it'd be kinda cool to play in a game where the "game kingdom" was the only Anti-Chaos location in the Chapter. ¡now, THAT would be fun!
so, returning to the OP: it's all about local Chapter; races/cultures/groups/individuals can be either pro or con depending on the whim of the plot team (so long as it's illegal where players actually convene)
so, returning to the OP: it's all about local Chapter; races/cultures/groups/individuals can be either pro or con depending on the whim of the plot team (so long as it's illegal where players actually convene)