Well, it WAS mechanically circle and hand-wave the mechanics. It IS not an issue, as the character is in the cooler until I can resolve the character with the restrictions. In the mean time, I rerolled my third character (Warmies just arent my thing anyhow) and am building the new one up at the moment.

>> Why is this? If the answer is "because x said so"...

The reason that I state that you were Attuned by Book has to do with the specific events your character went through upon joining. You endured specific horrors that... changed you. I cannot go into detail on these forums, because it is considered an in-game secret. The reason that you lose previous attunement has been discussed by Armifer regarding Book's (theoretical) former use of Warrior Mage spells, as well as Magic 3.0 lore. After a certain point, you have to decide between Lay Necromancy and Big Kid Necromancy, and to wear the big boy pants, you have to give up what you previously knew.

Per Armifer:

"Attunement to Arcane mana involves some pretty substantial changes to how a Necromancer's nervous system works (in ye olde days, the Imperial Healers' Guild hypothesized that the social deviance of sorcerers was somehow linked to these changes to the brain -- fortunately, no one knows or cares about their pesudo-magical theories anymore). The goal of the procedure is to produce a magician that can see and operate with multiple types of mana at once."

Book has created a unique process that throws out all of the years dabbling with Sorcery and forces an attunement on you in twenty minutes or less or your money back. Again, giving more detail would be inappropriate for these boards.

>> It seems all necromancers including the NPC necs that AREN'T philosophers know the same spells. The rituals are difficult to reconcile (but I believe possible), but the magic itself is pretty easy to work with.

Both Xerasyth and M have studied and collaborated extensively with Book. Xerasyth's is an alliance of convenience, while Markat seems to have been working with Book as a Philosopher for quite some time. Some similarities exist between Necromancy and the Philosophy, but the Philosophy brings Alchemy into the equation, leading to a few rather unique spells. Note that Velmix, Archrost, Hobglup, Marstan, and Skalarg did not have any of the same spells. Others have had small sets of similar or identical spells, sometimes mixed with spells we have no access to, but not access to the full spellbook -- Iszanua, Lyras, and Lyras' generals, for example. This I suspect this has something to do with a GM wanting to not have to create new spells for the characters, as the Necromancer guild was quite far along in development or completed when these characters first appeared.

The Philosophers' magic differs from other Necromancers' in three distinct ways:

1) No spirit Necromancy. Period.
2) (currently) only minimal construct making.
3) The incorporation of Alchemy.

The Philosophers seem to have limited practice in Blood and Corruption magic, where they seem to be highly developed in the Synthetic Creation spellbook. I have a feeling we have only seen the tip of the Synthetic Creation iceberg -- or Zamidren is only comfortable sharing the tip of the iceberg. Similarly, I would love to see what Xerasyth has in the Transcendental Necromancy spellbook for people that seek him out. Part of the reason Zamidren has been so aggressive in expanding is self-protection. In that sense, I've come to the conclusion that he's also only shared common parlor tricks derived from Kigot's Philosophy in order to put up a smokescreen and let the Temple focus on us while keeping us at arm's reach from the Great Work so that we can't muck any of his plans up. Book has little control over what we do after we join, and I've a feeling there are a slew of ex-Philosophers running around, biding their time.

I hope this answers the "Why?" for you. To make a long story short: a) You were attuned by the Philosophers because you had to be attuned by the Philosophers. b) You have spells derived from the Philosophy. Others have done the same, to varying degrees (alternatively, at one point, Lyras was a Philosopher), but never to the same end result of spells. There are clear delineations of Necromancy, and they are not all the same.

---

You typed Roar Help. Good for you!

<<no spirit necromancy - period>>

while i believe they are consciously keeping this from us, it is still out there, and I actually ran into it during the lyras event, although i was unable to replicate the effect <*> -- and we might possibly see it once other guildhalls that aren't necessarily connected with the philosophers show up. <although still, I think it has been stated by the GMs that one must still actually Join up under book>.


* I was somehow able to summon up a plague wraith <during the lyras event> which i was told <by one of the NPCs in the guildhall> happened when one was very angry or very hurt. This only happened once, I was unable to duplicate it, and it has never happened again. My character was quite repelled by the experience.

Other points of interest - Lyras and company were casting spells from our spellbook <i even screamed at her - "you are no philosopher" while trying to fight her back. So, although she did not come from the philosophers - book himself wrote in "NecroBios-Lyras" the author of which is Zamidren Book himself -
<<Some things about her past we may never know.
We also do not know from where she received her training as a Necromancer.
Certainly it rivaled anything she could have received from groups here in Kermoria,
such as the Bone Elves. Many of the Humans in her tribe, she convinced to follow her as apprentices.
When Lyras began her war against the Rakash and Prydaen, they assisted her. >>


Nonetheless, while NPCs will continue to "learn" their necromancy from places or persons or studies unknown -- <although due to events that happened during the advent of the guild, you could, theoretically, claim to have "learned" it from reading a ... cookbook :-)>, our PCs continue to be inducted in by the Philosophers.

yeah, but it was still fun. and screaming was one of the few things that wasn't blocked by her worm's mist.

Am I correct in my understanding the Necromancer Guild spells are a subset of the larger 'Sorcery' category of spells? And that Sorcery is a blending of energy (mana, attunement) types? Thus, that various NPCs could practice a form of 'necromancy' with spells and rituals similar to our guild, but different to the degree that 'not all Sorcery is the same'? And that all PC Necromancers are part of the "sect" called Philosophers of the Knife, even if Book cannot prevent some few from shirking the constraints of that sect, and sliding into an area of practice called "Perverse"?

---

"4.116 Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly." ~Wittgenstein, 'Tractatus'

Hubris is a big part of Necromancy, and claims that you are pursuing a different form of Necromancer than the Philosophers is rather missing out on the point of the guild. Not being a Philosopher is again, to make guild-guild comparisons, akin to claiming you are a Paladin who steals for justice and murders babies for peace.

Within Necromancy as listed by the lore is three levels, so to speak, of practitioners:

Redeemed are those who have turned their backs on Necromancy, sort of ventured into the woods of blasphemy and decided it was too dark and scary, and ran back towards the light.
Philosophers are those who continue to explore the woods, convinced that it isn't becoming their home, that they may one day tame it and make it something better. Key point here: Philosophy of the Knife takes it's name from the notion that what separates a man from a monster is a space the width of a knifes edge. Which means we, as Philosophers, recognize the terrible peril we are in, in what we do. We are NOT persistently deciding to stay on the 'human' side of the knife's edge, we are deliberately (foolishly) choosing to walk the line itself.
Perverse are those who have become part of the woods itself.

There isn't a fourth kind. To claim that you came about your Necromancy, or that your Necromancy is something different than playing into those three themes is either backstory (Madigan posted a really cool 'this is how I went down this path' montage about his Squire that I just think was phenomenal), and it feasibly ties into the game setting and lore, OR, it's completely delusional disregard for the environment we're all operating under.

Many of these posts have been excellent and have delved into the question in a very specific manner. So in my response I'll take the opportunity to dwell on the issue in a broader fashion. I'll bring up four points, starting with the most glib one and working backward toward seriousness.

1:
It takes a serious dedication to postmodernism to invoke The Death of the Author in a conversation with the author.

2:
There is, in fact, a certain level of arbitrariness inherent in the role of worldbuilding. Why is a mountain here but not there? Why is Kssarh angry and not nice? Why not space vampires from Neptune? While one of those might be an intuitive 'no,' consider that all three questions differ in scale rather than kind.

3:
There is a stark difference between Necromancers and PC Necromancers. Necromancers in the broadest term can do any sort of random act of evil that the plot demands; Necromancers summon wailing spirits, create poisons that permanently kill the innocent and sometimes even fight the avatar of Meraud Himself and come out on top.

PCs cannot - must not - do any of these things. As a basic explanation to why PC Necromancers are so limited while NPC Necromancers can still murder you with enchanted textiles, we fall back to a simple but effective DR trope that the guild structure prevents you from learning it. You are specifically a Necromancer from the tradition of the Philosophers, whether your character sticks with them or not, and the Philosophers' bag of tricks was specifically designed to be PC compatible.

4:
Necromancers in the broad term occupy a different ecological niche than the PC Necromancers. "Necromancer" is a code word for Bad Guy in the most fundamental sense. Necromancers in the past have done wildly misanthropic stuff simply because They're Evil. 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.

But the Necromancer's Guild is by necessity a look at the bad guys' side, and Sauron only works as villain as an archetypal role rather than a meaningful character. A Pure Evil character ran by a PC for entertainment would either be a masterful RP experiment or uncomfortably suggestive of the psychological issues being worked out. For this to work, there had to be sympathy for the devil, so my very first problem to solve was 'How do I make Necromancers sympathetic enough that we could imagine a real, live individual doing this?'

The Philosophers were my answer. The Philosophy promises you reprieve from death (note that I started inserting more real-life features of death into DR at this time), freedom from the contingencies of the world, the ability to be your own man. I designed the spiel appeal to most of our basic anxieties about life and touch on the dream of posthumanism and the glorification of mankind through his skill and technology. In not always subtle ways, the Philosophers came to embody 20th century philosophy and scientism. The Philosophers are doing, in a fantasy parody, what Western society enshrines as good and proper goals.

So the stage was set. All that stands between you and glorifying mankind is the evil you will do in its name.

This is, once again, a remarkably different role than what Sidhlot or Velmix brought to the table. The Old Man doesn't talk to Sidhlot, nor did the Hounds of Rutilor burn entire villages to root out a single Bone Elf. In a direct sense because the Bone Elves are not connected with the Great Work, but also because their portrayal of evil is outside the portrayal of evil we're using. The drama of the PC Necromancer -- the pogroms, the murmurs of conspiring otherworldly forces, the entwining moral evils from both sides, and the hints of transcendental glory -- is set in the foundation that the Philosophers bring to the setting.

So it is a requirement that, while your PC can love them or hate them, stay or leave, be a blubbering sycophant to Book or try to manipulate him for your own ends, you cannot be disconnected from them.

-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas

Pedia'D

>>So it is a requirement that, while your PC can love them or hate them, stay or leave, be a blubbering sycophant to Book or try to manipulate him for your own ends, you cannot be disconnected from them.

If I may reach for a tiny suggestion . There is the certain lecturing NPC that one has the option of learning from upon the joining quest. Perhaps it would be useful if listening to the said NPCs lectures were mandatory and/or part of the initiating quest. It would seem to clarify a lot of the empty spaces I find in new initiates . I know this would not solve such a problem as a whole so I could be over emphasizing it's impact. Criticism is welcome .

I agree with it's interactive aspect being more engaging . Although I can't see how a few mandatory lectures would ease scripting . They simply explain some important things not explained elsewhere . Like I said , there's no permanent fix for ignorance if someone wishes to "blow" through it . But I don't think it would create a greater frequency of walkthroughs .

Clarification of an otherwise inconsequential post I made yesterday:

I neither knew what "Death of the Author" was previous to looking it up, and I am not a published author. I hate the idea that my words might make me look like a pompous pseudo so much that I need to make a full disclosure, even though I have no reason to believe anyone but me cares. :D

---

"4.116 Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly." ~Wittgenstein, 'Tractatus'

>>Heck yeah I love the Science metaphor stuff, good to hear it stated explicitly.

Existentialism has been one of the big inspirations of the Necros from the word go, and the references to Kigot's "Philosophy of the Knife" being a huge, unwieldy tome that's everybody thinks is important but nobody really wants to take the time to read is a parody of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness."

>>We can act out the sweep of history that lead to an explosive growth in quality of life as well as to nihilism and the specter of nuclear annihilation.

Glory, immortality through man's works and the chance to look God(s) in the eye.

Though on the flip side, the Moon Mages have what is arguably the most unambiguous prediction ever on the topic: the fate of the Necromancers is connected to the death of everything. Everything.

-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas

And if it was full of ennui.

Possibly answering my own question:

It's not that Philos are scientists, but are modeled after post-Enlightenment thinking of Europe through the present day. In that sense, Moon Mages are modeled after Babylonian, Indian, Mayan, or Renaissance astrologers. Warrior Mages are modeled after ancient Greeks or early Enlightenment Europeans. Clerics and Paladins after Medieval Europe. Etc.

I guess I will accept this understanding unless informed otherwise.

---

"4.116 Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly." ~Wittgenstein, 'Tractatus'

>The Moon Mages are full of mathematicians and experimenters, and I wager even Rangers have 'scientists' who experiment with healing herbs, using proper controls and testing for statistical significance. But Necromancers are, in my mind, akin to the Los Alamos researchers, each of us Oppenheimers with our finger on the button, saying to anyone who will listen, "I am Shiva, destroyer of worlds".

From an IC perspective moon mage vision are literal foresight. They are mostly true and accurate predictors of things to come, if a bit open to interpretation at times. According to one of the moon mages most direct visions ever, someday one of you will actually succeed.

Considering that vision is fairly common knowledge it would be interesting to hear the necromancer take on the fact that their path has been foreseen to be the actual end of all things.

-pete

So, Elanthia is, in a sense, a semi-competitive syncretic conflation of various cultural 'weltenschauung peaks' throughout the history of civilization, each one no less "real" than the next. Philos, being postmodern, morally ambiguous, but no more empirical or rational than those worldviews that RL rationalism rejected: the mystical, metaphysical, Romantic, theological, etc.

I can't help but think our part is just a recapitulation of a novel written by a teenage girl 193 years ago.

---

"4.116 Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly." ~Wittgenstein, 'Tractatus'

::::spoiler::::

When the Great Work is completed , everyones head explodes .

>Not a ton of people, not even GMs, have a firm grasp of what the medieval era was like other than swords and bows. Like most fantasy fiction, DR doesn't go to any length to model the era in a sensible way, not even from a technological perspective but from its sociology or mindset either.

I recall posting in the Ancient Days of DR that Elanthia (and most High Fantasy settings) must be the RL technological equivalent of Europe circa 1450-1480: after the development of plate mail and crossbows, but before gun powder technologies. (Think 100 Years War and 'Henry V'.) Although it's slightly behind RL in siege technologies... although the Gorbesh had them back in the day, if IIRC. Sociologically, it's a mish-mash. I actually find that conflation extremely interesting. Fantasy is ultimately nothing more or less than "What if!"

---

"4.116 Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly." ~Wittgenstein, 'Tractatus'

>One of the things that I was drawn to character wise about the Philosophers , which I may need to be corrected upon. Was the parallel mind set and more importantly acting upon of "Anti-God". The rebellion against religion/s. For where ever there is a belief or servitude there is an anti belief . Some guild's characters , like the MM's can fall under this anti belief I suppose. But the practice of Necromancy is the directed act against the gods will and an impedance. Perhaps this falls too much under demonology to be considered in the "Philosophers" idiom ?

The closest thing we had in DR years ago was refusing/charging for rezzes. LOL. What an OUTRAGE that used to cause! I absolutely adored enraging people by training my Cleric for years, then refusing to help them. The player base became acclimated to it before I got tired of it. :)

Then it became trite.

---

"4.116 Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly." ~Wittgenstein, 'Tractatus'

>>I recall posting in the Ancient Days of DR that Elanthia (and most High Fantasy settings) must be the RL technological equivalent of Europe circa 1450-1480: after the development of plate mail and crossbows, but before gun powder technologies.

Now throw in mechanically produced electricity, telescopes, advanced metallurgy, Cartesian philosophy, and germ theory. And this doesn't touch the sundry modern and Enlightenment era stuff that comes out of the PCs sociologically.

-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas