>>As an Empath-primary player, and due to the Empath guild's special relationship to the Undead, I believe that our guild must have a voice in any discussion of defining what undead-ness means. The influence of those decisions on the nature of life energies and life magic will be enormous.

I'm curious as to Empath's special relationship with the undead. Is there anywhere you can direct me so I can read up on it?


~Thilan

My thought was always, currently, that since it is animated by life mana, it has some portion of life essence. Ergo harming it would violate empathic vows. Not saying I think it's right, or whatever. Just mechanics explanation.

I would like to clarify and say that the Empath vow seems to apply to living beings (whatever that means).

A: Empaths can skin and receive no shock. Mechanically this was probably done to allow Empaths SOME way to make coin by fighting money and box-less critters. The implication seems to be, however, that once the thing stops twitching (e.g., is dead) all bets are off.

B: Empaths cannot fish. This is in accord with Empaths not harming living beings (or multi-celled animals, if you wish to be very specific). They can forage, crush flowers, carve limbs, etc etc etc., and fauna most certainly is imbued with life mana (see: Ranger bonus). Ergo, the implication seems to be differentiating between living animals (which Undead are not) causing shock, and nonliving animals/non-animals (which Undead are) not causing shock. The presence or lack of life mana seems to be, at this point, nonsequitor.

---

Wish List: Weapon enchanting, Empath romancing, Bardic Screams, and Barb love-beams.

>>But Empaths have taken a vow not to harm the living, not a vow not to harm anything with any life mana inside of it.<<

They may take a vow, but shock is just their natural reaction, not anything like guilt.

nah yer confusing us with doctors again, there wasn't any vow to do no harm, just reprecussion if we do


--
Treat empaths with respect, you'll live longer
--
http://people.1up.com/do/my1Up?publicUserId=5198137

>I'm curious as to Empath's special relationship with the undead. Is there anywhere you can direct me so I can read up on it?

>~Thilan

My statement was largely based on existing mechanics. Undead creatures especially hate Empaths and Empath magic. They have almost perfectly opposite reactions to many empath abilities and spells, for example casting innocence will enrage the undead and cause them to attack the empath, as will manipulating friendship on them. Empaths can also directly sense their corrupted life energy via perceive health.

>>My statement was largely based on existing mechanics. Undead creatures especially hate Empaths and Empath magic. They have almost perfectly opposite reactions to many empath abilities and spells, for example casting innocence will enrage the undead and cause them to attack the empath, as will manipulating friendship on them. Empaths can also directly sense their corrupted life energy via perceive health.

Cool, didn't know that, thanks. As long as your fellow Life mana users the Rangers get some anti-undead loving as well. And no, PLS doesn't count. ;)


~Thilan

>I'm not willing to believe this is a 'special relationship' honestly. Two abilities which do the same thing, and achieve the same result. How novel. Yes, it's an oversimplification.

All 'special relationship' means is, the undead react to Empaths in a different way than they do other guilds and Empaths react to the undead in a different way than we do other creatures. Empaths can sense the unique presence of the undead through our ability to perceive life essences. They register on our senses in a special and unique way that other creatures do not. The undead react to our magic in a way that is the opposite of what is intended, and no other kind of creature reacts this way. All of this is supported by the plain facts, and adds up to a special relationship between Empaths and the undead. Obviously there is something going on where each side has a special sensitivity to the other.

And this thread has nothing to do with undead hunting. I did not present this special relationship as a justification for undead hunting, I think you are confusing two different (but admittedly related) threads.

The arguments supporting undead hunting by empaths are based on the logical consequences to the question of whether the undead possess any life essence that would trigger our shock reaction (which occurs when we intentionally harm living things). If the undead are not alive, nor possessed of any splinter or shadow of life energy, then Empaths should be able to attack them directly. If they are in some way possessed of life energy, then I believe Empaths should be able to 'heal' them back to normal death by restoring vitality to their super-corrupted physical bodies.

>>Bottom line: All new ideas will require, at the very least, SOME coding or SOME change or redefinition of how mechanics work.

Well yes, pointing out they have HP just like anything else is only part of the sum, or a means to the end. I was just thinking aloud that, to use a bad analogy, empathy hurting undead would be like rewiring an entire house whereas allowing Empaths to hit undead would be like installing a new switch. Or so I imagine, O don't have access to the code.

But yes, they would both be cool. So if it is feasible it would be nice to see.

---

Wish List: Weapon enchanting, Empath romancing, Bardic Screams, and Barb love-beams.

Haha. Edited your post?

Reply above.

---

Wish List: Weapon enchanting, Empath romancing, Bardic Screams, and Barb love-beams.

>The only problem with this is, mechanics-wise, undead have 'real' vitality just like every other creature.

Yes I agree the way undead are currently set up they have positive vitality, like all creatures do. But I see that as an old limitation of ancient mechanics. That's a big part of why I'm chiming in now, since undead creatures are being reviewed and will probably be rewritten in some way ;)

>And also, given the way Empathy works (as I have said this before), I REALLY REALLY REALLY don't see establishing a link with a dead creature to be a smart idea.

I don't see any problem at all with linking with a dead creature since it is currently possible and commonly done with dead adventurers. We can currently link to a dead adventurer, who has negative vitality, and heal it back up to zero. I think most people are glad that Empaths can link with deaders ;) To stretch the analogy, no, raising a deader's vitality back up from the negative to zero does not bring them back to life, but we're talking about bringing something from undeath to normal death which isn't quite the same.

A major missing required element here is critter healing, which would allow us to establish a diagnostic link with non-adventurers. And which has been proposed many times in the past, and unless I'm mistaken is currently on the 'maybe someday' table in terms of development.

>Requirements for letting Empaths attack undead:
>1) Undead check to see if a critter will cause shock

>Requirements for 'healing' undead to death:
>1) Empathy rewrite to make critters targettable
>2) Expansion of empathic theory to incorporate relationship to undead
>3) Undead check to make sure there will be vitality loss and not wound transferring like on living creatures
>4) Rewrite of all undead critters to make them suseptible to Empathy

>This is (I imagine) the amount of work that would be involved. Now, I know in other games healers can damage undead (cast Heal on the Skeleton, etc etc.), but DR's system is completely different given the wounds actually transfer to the healer. It would be fine if you just wanted to make, say, Vitality Heal damage undead... should be simple enough.

Well, you do admit in another post that this list is highly speculative and I agree ;) CHRISTIANSONK3 put it really well, all new systems by definition require writing new code for the game. The way shock works on a mechanical level is much more complex than you make it out to be however; as I understand it, it is essentially verb-based and not so much target-based. So while currently the whole verb is forbidden, and I admit I don't have any idea what the actual code is like, you'd have to rewrite every combat verb to recognize that some targets are acceptible for Empaths to attack and others are not. In any event, Shock is currently in the final stages of a major rewrite, a fact which might argue for it being less likely to be revisited any time soon.

And I'm honestly not considering other games in the slightest. I believe that undead healing is in keeping with the logic and structure of DR. Or it certainly can be if the right decisions are made about the nature of undead beings.

>Beyond that I don't think the amount of labor involved in making Undead 'suseptible' to empathy would be worthwhile given how truly niche the ability would probably be.

I have to take exception to this statement. Undead healing for Empaths would be a niche ability to the precisely same extent that astrological prediction, or making gweths, is a niche ability. Or having a familiar. Or berserking. Or raising dead people. Or waving a glyph over someone. Etc etc etc. We're talking about a guild ability here. If what we are discussing is a 'niche ability' then so to is every other guild ability in the game.

>>Beyond that I don't think the amount of labor involved in making Undead 'suseptible' to empathy would be worthwhile given how truly niche the ability would probably be.

>>I have to take exception to this statement. Undead healing for Empaths would be a niche ability to the precisely same extent that astrological prediction, or making gweths, is a niche ability. Or having a familiar. Or berserking. Or raising dead people. Or waving a glyph over someone. Etc etc etc. We're talking about a guild ability here. If what we are discussing is a 'niche ability' then so to is every other guild ability in the game.

Umm, no. I honestly think it would be a niche ability. Why? Allow me to explain my mode of thought.

Clerics are supposed to be the best undead killers. Love it or hate it, when determining how powerful Empath undead 'healing' would be the spells would most definitely take other guild niches into consideration when determining their power. I think they would be a lot more watered down then you appear to think they would be.

Secondly, what is DR about? Ranks. DR is about experience, skill, stats, and ranks (in conjunction with roleplay). I imagine many people prefer roleplay to ranks or ranks to roleplay, but given the chance I'm sure almost everyone would want not only to A) have fun roleplaying but B) do it in a way that gives them the skills necessary to circle to get shiny new spells, abilities, etc.

So, from an experience standpoint, what use would 'killing' undead have? Being a magic secondary guild, Empaths probably wouldn't get an undead-killing target magic spell. It would work PM and Harness, of course, but then these can be trained efficiently without the danger of combat. Would killing undead teach Empathy? That would be beat. Perceive Health would probably remain a better way to train though.

So what do you end up with? An ability to kill a creature that, for practical purposes, probably adds nothing new to the Empath guild. No new, better way to train skills, no new way to hunt that would work more effictively (or pay better) then manipulating living critters. I don't envision Empaths ever being able to touch Undead in a way that Clerics can, or Barbarians with blessed weapons. If they can that would be friggin great, but the Clerics would whine.

Now, I'd still love this sort of ability. However, unless it comes in conjunction with another major change (allowing Empaths to hurt undead a la target magic or weapon ranks), I don't see what newness it offers. Familiars carry items, pull you away when stunned, etc. Berserks give you major combat boosts. Raising dead people is... well, raising dead people

If you get to kill undead without actually being able to 'hunt' them, you have at best a new avenue for roleplay that provides no reliable means of ranks, TDPs, advancement, or monetary gain. New abilities to roleplay are not useless, but I didn't call them useless. It would be a 'niche' ability, worthwhile only to a few for the sake of roleplaying, and that's the word I used.

---

Wish List: Weapon enchanting, Empath romancing, Bardic Screams, and Barb love-beams.

>>Do your posts have any purpose other than trying to incite GvG by provoking both sides?

The problem is not my post. The problem is that select individuals like yourself ignore entire paragraphs of content and then focus on only one comment that may be construed as slightly GvG when you get your tail-feathers in a ruffle.

This is not meant to be a personal attack, but seriously. Unwind a little and try to see the point I'm making instead of pasting one comment completely out of context.

---

Wish List: Weapon enchanting, Empath romancing, Bardic Screams, and Barb love-beams.

>Your entire post seemed to incite GvG debate to me.

Most of them seem to.

What we're seeing is a handful of clerics saying 'ya, it'd be cool, cause we'd have empaths in the hunting grounds'. We are not, however, seeing the other handful (or more) who would be even more vocal whining, screaming, crying, pissing themselves in anguish that 'omg someone else has special abilities vs. undead'.

You know it would happen.

Personally, my thought goes like this: empaths are more than welcome to undead, provided A) it's reasonably well 'excused', and B) the abilities are lower than clerics. Why? Greed. Most cleric hunting areas see no one; I am alone in them 95% or more of the time. Adding empaths would add gen, add company, and add a healer (maybe, to the last two).

I really don't want just a generic 'poof, ok, go kill undead with no reasoning', I want a full blown logical thought process from the GM's, which is going to require the concrete definition of undead.

And the abilities do have to be lesser; clerics are the master. This is not up for debate. They cannot even be equal.

>>Changing the current system so that they could utilize the skills they already have- weapons and magic- to hurt undead would be a relatively minor change.

Should we also change it so that NMUs can use runestones and wands again as well? Here I thought that was part of the price to pay for signing up with the Empaths, just like not using magic was part of the price for being a Thief/Trader/Barb.


~Thilan

>Umm, no. I honestly think it would be a niche ability. Why? Allow me to explain my mode of thought.

You make some valid points, and I agree with you on some, but not all. We're kind of getting into 'my DR' vs 'your DR', rank-chasing vs. roleplay, etc, but that's another debate, one which has been waged far too many times, to no avail, to get into here ;)

But after your explanation, I think I now actually agree with you that undead healing would indeed be a niche ability, appealing to only a segment of players. Yes, and other existing guild abilities are also in fact niche abilities, since not everyone uses every aspect of the game available to them. What is a niche system to you is someone else's meat and potatoes. That is a big part of what DR is in my opinion--a rich, complex game environment with many fascinating game systems to explore, but which you don't have to use if you don't want to. So the argument that it might not be worth development resources because it is a niche ability doesn't hold water for me.

>So what do you end up with? An ability to kill a creature that, for practical purposes, probably adds nothing new to the Empath guild.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion but I strongly disagree. I think it would add a huge element of excitement and opportunity to the Empath guild.

And I don't think anyone here is arguing that Empaths would or should suddenly become masters of the undead or supplant Clerics in any way. Also I don't expect any TM spells of any kind, since it's been stated numerous times by many GM's that TM is an offensive skill primarily for magic primary guilds (or is it exclusively magic-primary? I honestly don't know). There's also nothing inherently wrong with a lore skill having combat applications. All kinds of skills are useful outside their skillset grouping. Dart recently posted in support of that very subject, I believe.

Thilan- you trying to wreck the thread? Of course runes for NMU's is a volatile subject- and deserves it own thread if you wish to pursue it- and for the record I think that was a bad change.

Point being though- things change. NMU's were able to use runes once and can't now. Empath's can't currently hurt empaths, but pretty much everyone here is advocating empaths being able to attack undead, the only discussion is how this would be best accomplished.

Flavius

>Since when is posting a dissenting opinion "wrecking a thread"? Where's Sylvado when you need him?

We're discussing apples. You suddenly start discussing Volvos. This is not even remotely tangental to the current conversation. You have an axe to grind, and are simply injecting your vitrol wherever you find an opening, and then lashing out at people who say 'Hey, our fruit conversation doesn't have anything to do with cars!'.

Thanks for playing.

Thilan, if then intent of your post was not to derail the thread then my apologies for the misundertanding. However, even if that wasn't intent, it came off that way to me. Why? The whole MD issues with NMU's has been contentious since it was implemented and usually sparks of storm of posts by thieves(traders never seem to care) about how they were victimized. And I read your post as advocating MD use for NMU's, not as a commentary on why Empaths should or should not be able to fight undead.

An IC logic of why undead combat should be allowed has been outlined already- it would just take an event to explain why empaths suddently realize that hitting non-living/undead with a sword doesn't cause shock now.

It doesn't really sound like anyone thinks empaths shouldn't be able to kill undead.

Am I missing something?

Ok, we all agree that empaths should be able to kill undead as fast as clerics.

We all agree that the 'definition' of what it is to be undead needs to be formalized.

We all agree that this would be a really cool thing for empaths to have.

What more do you people want? Seems like a lot of nitpicking and complaining about percieved problems.