@Armifer
We've been having some really wild and interesting discussions on the nature of necromancy, and we're hoping you could answer some questions regarding the OOC nature of being a necromancer in DR. We all agree that a necromancer can RP his or her character in any way that makes sense in the setting, and that other adventurers can react however they choose as well. But some friends have pointed out that you had made some posts in the past that have clearly stated that necromancers are necessarily evil, though some of us believe it's possible that position may have evolved in the time since those posts were made.
Here is the most salient question that has come up:
1. Is it the case that Philosopher necros at some point must murder innocent people in order to complete the Great Work?
We can all agree the necros need to deal with dead bodies, have altered nervous systems, deal in high sorcery, and are under the influence of demons to varying degrees (all of which affects the necro's sanity). There's also a lot of awesome IG messaging that conditions the perspective of various guilds against necromancers, but the first question points at something very important for a lot of people, because, unlike many of the other dangerous aspects of necromancy, a necessity for murder is not shared by the other guilds. In the past, you've written numerous posts along these lines:
>The Philosophers of the Knife are unique among necromantic cults for two reasons. First, they adhere to a codified ontology and ethics called the Philosophy of the Knife. Second, they use necromancy to pursue the ancient goals of spiritual alchemy, seeking to awaken or steal divinity for humanity through the Alchemy of Flesh.
>Eternal life and glory is the prize, but the cost is measured in a staggering number of innocent bodies.
and others that seem to foreclose the possibility of playing a virtuous necromancer. The question of whether Philosophers must commit murder is made more pressing by the fact that nothing IG forces a necro to engage in that sort of activity. If a necro forgoes the creation of risen, and hunts non-sentient things, they can, at the level of IG thoughts and actions, seemingly live a very virtuous life.
A friend had also pointed out these posts:
>When I initially designed the guild I had a plot line in mind with a beginning (the coalition of the Philosophers) a middle (the completion of the Philosophy) and an end (finding Transcendence). That did not happen, again for many reasons not least of which is fault of my own, and ultimately we entered two concurrent problems.
>I'm willing to step back from some positions I would earlier in my time as a GM double-down on. The "purity" of the Necromancer vision is one of them.
These made me think that maybe there was going to be an IG path to Transcendence which might require a Philosopher to murder an innocent along the way, thus cementing the Philosopher necro as ultimately evil if they pursued the Great Work. But this never came to fruition, and your last word in that thread seemed to suggest that the state of things may have opened new possibilities for the guild.
If a Philosopher necro does not need to murder innocents, it seems that certain anti-hero character types, though risky and dangerous, would be possible - something along the lines of Geralt of Rivia or John Constantine. These characters might be tainted, or hated by the gods, but they can still be more or less objectively virtuous.
If, on the other hand, it's the case that all necros must murder innocent people in order to advance in the guild, but that those systems, for playability reasons, aren't a part of the IG necro experience, that's cool too. I think hearing any of your thoughts on this subject would awesome and a huge help for how we plan our RP and characters.
If you have time, there are two other questions that weigh heavily on the OOC nature of the necro that would be cool to know for people who are thinking about making necro characters, for helping to shape the expectations of people already running necro characters, and for people thinking about running RP plots to have a better idea of what would actually tie in with the canonical lore:
2. Is the "immortals are cattle ranchers" ideology espoused in the necro lore objectively false?
3. Does high sorcery irreparably damage the Plane of Abiding (i.e. not in a hormetic way, or in a way that can be reversed by the immortals)?
Thanks for making the lore so deep and fascinating, Armifer.
ARMAGNA
REAVER1
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/25/2018 12:23 PM CDT
>We've been having some really wild and interesting discussions on the nature of necromancy,
Where? :/
Where? :/
DR-ARMIFER
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/25/2018 01:38 PM CDT
>>1. Is it the case that Philosopher necros at some point must murder innocent people in order to complete the Great Work?
One idea that I've held dear about how Necromancers work, that we've hinted about but never been explicit about, is called the Perfunctory Sin. Necromancers need to do Bad Things to empower their rituals, and their rituals empower their more iconic powers.
So, as you point out, all Necromancers (and all necromancy) is under the purview of demons in one way or another. The question of what you do with that is embodied in the three states of being.
1) Denial of the demonic, the Redeemed.
2) Going all in on the demonic, the Perverse.
And that leaves...
3) Going in halfsies?
Sort of. Without going into details that might still someday be relevant, Transcendence is not a denial or total abject acceptance of either divine or demonic forces. Transcendence is the ability to impose your will on both and do spiritual judo.
This is a long way of saying that the Philosophers, in pursuit of the Great Work, will need to do greater feats of objective evil (insofar as I get to define such a thing) and greater ability to recognize what they're doing at the same time. It's possible we'll not explicitly make "murder the innocent" as the benchmark here, but the intention still remains that the Philosopher needs to go into the deeps and darks to come out the other end.
>>2. Is the "immortals are cattle ranchers" ideology espoused in the necro lore objectively false?
The situation with the Immortals is overdetermined; there are multiple things going on at the same time. The Immortals gain from the cycle of life and death and do, in fact, withhold the ability to fundamentally change it in ways that would be pleasing to the Philosophers. The Old Man has hinted that they do this for not altogether wrong-headed reasons.
The Immortals are not absolute bad guys, but one thing we're doing with Necromancers is exploring theodicy in-setting. That never puts a deity with creational or absolute power over the universe in a good light.
>>3. Does high sorcery irreparably damage the Plane of Abiding (i.e. not in a hormetic way, or in a way that can be reversed by the immortals)?
High Sorcery, and especially Necromancy/Ontologic Sorcery due to the demon component, does damage to the Plane of Abiding. I hesitate to say it'd be irreparable, but one thing that is consistent in my depictions of guilds I write lore for is that Elanthia is slowly inching towards an apocalypse that may or may not be preventable.
-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
One idea that I've held dear about how Necromancers work, that we've hinted about but never been explicit about, is called the Perfunctory Sin. Necromancers need to do Bad Things to empower their rituals, and their rituals empower their more iconic powers.
So, as you point out, all Necromancers (and all necromancy) is under the purview of demons in one way or another. The question of what you do with that is embodied in the three states of being.
1) Denial of the demonic, the Redeemed.
2) Going all in on the demonic, the Perverse.
And that leaves...
3) Going in halfsies?
Sort of. Without going into details that might still someday be relevant, Transcendence is not a denial or total abject acceptance of either divine or demonic forces. Transcendence is the ability to impose your will on both and do spiritual judo.
This is a long way of saying that the Philosophers, in pursuit of the Great Work, will need to do greater feats of objective evil (insofar as I get to define such a thing) and greater ability to recognize what they're doing at the same time. It's possible we'll not explicitly make "murder the innocent" as the benchmark here, but the intention still remains that the Philosopher needs to go into the deeps and darks to come out the other end.
>>2. Is the "immortals are cattle ranchers" ideology espoused in the necro lore objectively false?
The situation with the Immortals is overdetermined; there are multiple things going on at the same time. The Immortals gain from the cycle of life and death and do, in fact, withhold the ability to fundamentally change it in ways that would be pleasing to the Philosophers. The Old Man has hinted that they do this for not altogether wrong-headed reasons.
The Immortals are not absolute bad guys, but one thing we're doing with Necromancers is exploring theodicy in-setting. That never puts a deity with creational or absolute power over the universe in a good light.
>>3. Does high sorcery irreparably damage the Plane of Abiding (i.e. not in a hormetic way, or in a way that can be reversed by the immortals)?
High Sorcery, and especially Necromancy/Ontologic Sorcery due to the demon component, does damage to the Plane of Abiding. I hesitate to say it'd be irreparable, but one thing that is consistent in my depictions of guilds I write lore for is that Elanthia is slowly inching towards an apocalypse that may or may not be preventable.
-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
PRIMEQ
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/25/2018 02:00 PM CDT
He's referring to a discussion some of us have been having on a private Discord server.
- Navesi
- Navesi
ARMAGNA
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/25/2018 02:54 PM CDT
>One idea . . . -Armifer
That was jaw-droppingly interesting and a huge help. Really appreciate the response.
That was jaw-droppingly interesting and a huge help. Really appreciate the response.
ACIDICSNAIL
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/25/2018 02:54 PM CDT
>>One idea that I've held dear about how Necromancers work, that we've hinted about but never been explicit about, is called the Perfunctory Sin. Necromancers need to do Bad Things to empower their rituals, and their rituals empower their more iconic powers.
>>Without going into details that might still someday be relevant, Transcendence is not a denial or total abject acceptance of either divine or demonic forces. Transcendence is the ability to impose your will on both and do spiritual judo.
>>The Immortals are not absolute bad guys, but one thing we're doing with Necromancers is exploring theodicy in-setting. That never puts a deity with creational or absolute power over the universe in a good light.
Nothing else in DR excites me quite like Necromancer lore. I've played (and enjoyed) many other guilds over the years, but none of them managed to capture my interest quite like necromancers have. No other guild has quite the same degree of social impact on the world. It asks a lot of hard questions that challenge the status quo, and as a result spawns a lot of internal and external conflict, which leads to a lot of very fun RP.
I know that the guild may not have gone quite like you originally envisioned, Armifer, but I can safely say that there are a lot of people who are still very enthusiastic about this story that you've created.
It may not be "soon", but I greatly look forward to the day that the Necromancer story arc is driven forward again. I think Elanthia will be an even more interesting and divided place then.
>>Without going into details that might still someday be relevant, Transcendence is not a denial or total abject acceptance of either divine or demonic forces. Transcendence is the ability to impose your will on both and do spiritual judo.
>>The Immortals are not absolute bad guys, but one thing we're doing with Necromancers is exploring theodicy in-setting. That never puts a deity with creational or absolute power over the universe in a good light.
Nothing else in DR excites me quite like Necromancer lore. I've played (and enjoyed) many other guilds over the years, but none of them managed to capture my interest quite like necromancers have. No other guild has quite the same degree of social impact on the world. It asks a lot of hard questions that challenge the status quo, and as a result spawns a lot of internal and external conflict, which leads to a lot of very fun RP.
I know that the guild may not have gone quite like you originally envisioned, Armifer, but I can safely say that there are a lot of people who are still very enthusiastic about this story that you've created.
It may not be "soon", but I greatly look forward to the day that the Necromancer story arc is driven forward again. I think Elanthia will be an even more interesting and divided place then.
PRIMEQ
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/25/2018 06:13 PM CDT
Some follow up questions if you are in the mood.
It seems that the Philosopher must AT SOME POINT perform an evil act to continue along with the Work, but up until that point can refrain from murdering innocents or otherwise doing "objective evil." Have any PC Philosophers reached the Evil point, in a mandated OOC way? E.g., you mention that rituals are powered by Bad Things -- are there any such rituals that Philosopher PCs are performing in game currently?
In other words, can a current PC Philosopher claim a moral high ground, as long as they refrain from doing X, Y, and Z things?
- Navesi
It seems that the Philosopher must AT SOME POINT perform an evil act to continue along with the Work, but up until that point can refrain from murdering innocents or otherwise doing "objective evil." Have any PC Philosophers reached the Evil point, in a mandated OOC way? E.g., you mention that rituals are powered by Bad Things -- are there any such rituals that Philosopher PCs are performing in game currently?
In other words, can a current PC Philosopher claim a moral high ground, as long as they refrain from doing X, Y, and Z things?
- Navesi
DR-ARMIFER
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/25/2018 06:56 PM CDT
>>In other words, can a current PC Philosopher claim a moral high ground, as long as they refrain from doing X, Y, and Z things?
I want to dissect that a bit more in lieu of a yes/no.
All Necromancers damage the Plane of Abiding with their acts.
All Necromancers have, and most continue to, interact with the Hunger in some capacity or another.
All Necromancers have, and most continue to, kill to explicitly perform rites that call in demonic forces.
Likely you hit all three bullet-points before 2nd circle.
That's not to say you can't claim the moral high ground. It was just animals, not people. I'm using the demonic power against the Hunger's plans. I'm only practicing magic because I need it to survive. When you get into the squishy bits of human morality and psychology, you get what I consider a major portion of what Philosopher RP and character building can explore. Can your PC, personally, claim the moral high ground?
-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 want to dissect that a bit more in lieu of a yes/no.
All Necromancers damage the Plane of Abiding with their acts.
All Necromancers have, and most continue to, interact with the Hunger in some capacity or another.
All Necromancers have, and most continue to, kill to explicitly perform rites that call in demonic forces.
Likely you hit all three bullet-points before 2nd circle.
That's not to say you can't claim the moral high ground. It was just animals, not people. I'm using the demonic power against the Hunger's plans. I'm only practicing magic because I need it to survive. When you get into the squishy bits of human morality and psychology, you get what I consider a major portion of what Philosopher RP and character building can explore. Can your PC, personally, claim the moral high ground?
-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
SARAGOS
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/25/2018 07:51 PM CDT
I hope to piggyback on this and see if I can get you to spill more beans, as, to me, it's at the heart of the discussion of just how accepted it's reasonable for Necromancers to be. I want to be super, super, extra clear on one thing - characters can have all sorts of views, many of which make perfect sense, draw upon established lore, are valid roleplaying choices... and are also mutually contradictory. It's fun to have characters that are closer to the truth and those that are farther from it. I'm not talking about that. Really the question is, "Just how bad are Philosophers when it comes to destroying all of creation?"
To me, the real question is how bad are Philosophers on the scale of destroying all of creation? A couple of quotes here are very relevant.
>Redeemable? Well, literally, no. There is no redemption on the path (the Redeemed are defined by the rejection of the Work).
Necromancers are bad people, but they can be understandably bad people. You can certainly argue there are transcendent virtues to the Work -- that's part of the point of making Necromancers sympathetic. But it is framed around "they are mentally disturbed murderers that, wittingly or not, may be bringing about the end of the universe."
>-Armifer
>Well, sure. The Great Work; the Magnum Opus; the perfected necromancy; life everlasting. The Philosophers are in it for living immortality and the self-determination of humanity. Not many people will fault them for their abstract goals alone.
>They're just, you know, trying to find it by murdering people, desecrating the dead, and may be unwittingly destroying all of Creation to attain it. Those wacky, lovable scamps.
>-Armifer
Now, I know you can't go spilling the metaphysical beans on everything. But there are lots of levels of evil and dangers when it comes to destroying all life as we know it, many of which are tolerated quite well by society. A while ago Jhien's player and I had a conversation about making a rating chart of how dangerous various guilds were to Elanthia. Obviously Perverse are very high on that list, but my guess is that a Philosopher, even one who is trying to perform metaphysical judo, is a super high risk as well, due to how complicated an act that is. What I have trouble with when it comes to wanting to find a more tolerant place on the spectrum towards Philosophers is that destroying everything is on a whole other level than any sort of evil acts, and I kind of feel that no sane person who understands the risks would want to have anything to do with them REGARDLESS of moral compass, due to the planar risk. Even the most bloodthirsty criminal who'd commit unspeakable atrocities for plats probably doesn't want to die.
So, really, I guess my question is: Can you give any indication as to how dangerous Philosophers actually are, when it comes to risking "destroying all of Creation to attain it"?
Because we can debate all day about the evils of the other guilds and who is worse, and how you can understand someone's motivations (and have some darn fun roleplay IG about it besides), but to me, the risk of ending the universe makes that whole debate a non-starter unless I'm playing a character who is basically ignorant of the whole situation. Am I wrong?
- Saragos
To me, the real question is how bad are Philosophers on the scale of destroying all of creation? A couple of quotes here are very relevant.
>Redeemable? Well, literally, no. There is no redemption on the path (the Redeemed are defined by the rejection of the Work).
Necromancers are bad people, but they can be understandably bad people. You can certainly argue there are transcendent virtues to the Work -- that's part of the point of making Necromancers sympathetic. But it is framed around "they are mentally disturbed murderers that, wittingly or not, may be bringing about the end of the universe."
>-Armifer
>Well, sure. The Great Work; the Magnum Opus; the perfected necromancy; life everlasting. The Philosophers are in it for living immortality and the self-determination of humanity. Not many people will fault them for their abstract goals alone.
>They're just, you know, trying to find it by murdering people, desecrating the dead, and may be unwittingly destroying all of Creation to attain it. Those wacky, lovable scamps.
>-Armifer
Now, I know you can't go spilling the metaphysical beans on everything. But there are lots of levels of evil and dangers when it comes to destroying all life as we know it, many of which are tolerated quite well by society. A while ago Jhien's player and I had a conversation about making a rating chart of how dangerous various guilds were to Elanthia. Obviously Perverse are very high on that list, but my guess is that a Philosopher, even one who is trying to perform metaphysical judo, is a super high risk as well, due to how complicated an act that is. What I have trouble with when it comes to wanting to find a more tolerant place on the spectrum towards Philosophers is that destroying everything is on a whole other level than any sort of evil acts, and I kind of feel that no sane person who understands the risks would want to have anything to do with them REGARDLESS of moral compass, due to the planar risk. Even the most bloodthirsty criminal who'd commit unspeakable atrocities for plats probably doesn't want to die.
So, really, I guess my question is: Can you give any indication as to how dangerous Philosophers actually are, when it comes to risking "destroying all of Creation to attain it"?
Because we can debate all day about the evils of the other guilds and who is worse, and how you can understand someone's motivations (and have some darn fun roleplay IG about it besides), but to me, the risk of ending the universe makes that whole debate a non-starter unless I'm playing a character who is basically ignorant of the whole situation. Am I wrong?
- Saragos
DR-ARMIFER
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/25/2018 08:28 PM CDT
>>So, really, I guess my question is: Can you give any indication as to how dangerous Philosophers actually are, when it comes to risking "destroying all of Creation to attain it"?
I'm not going to give a direct answer to this one, but will give some food for thought.
So, let's also talk about the nature of the threat. Necromancy is problematic in two related but distinct ways.
A) Like every High Sorcery and some regular magic, it produces "bleed in" from other planes. The planar void is breached and two planes come into direct contact. In this case a portion of the physical laws and substance of the planes exchange hands. Every single time an incursion of sufficient size happens (whatever size that may be), the world becomes a little more demon-y or Immortal-y or Probability...y. The cosmological constants subtly (or, in the Lyras example, not very subtly) change.
B) The Hunger is probably still scheming to break in and eat you. Its desire to aid and empower Necromancers is a little damning in its own right.
I talked a lot about A in the previous post, but that is probably the lesser of the two direct threats and, like I mentioned, people other than Necromancers also contribute to it. The Hunger is harder to ignore, and until you learn what its game is there's no way for a PC to know exactly how big of a fire any individual Philosopher is playing with.
-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'm not going to give a direct answer to this one, but will give some food for thought.
So, let's also talk about the nature of the threat. Necromancy is problematic in two related but distinct ways.
A) Like every High Sorcery and some regular magic, it produces "bleed in" from other planes. The planar void is breached and two planes come into direct contact. In this case a portion of the physical laws and substance of the planes exchange hands. Every single time an incursion of sufficient size happens (whatever size that may be), the world becomes a little more demon-y or Immortal-y or Probability...y. The cosmological constants subtly (or, in the Lyras example, not very subtly) change.
B) The Hunger is probably still scheming to break in and eat you. Its desire to aid and empower Necromancers is a little damning in its own right.
I talked a lot about A in the previous post, but that is probably the lesser of the two direct threats and, like I mentioned, people other than Necromancers also contribute to it. The Hunger is harder to ignore, and until you learn what its game is there's no way for a PC to know exactly how big of a fire any individual Philosopher is playing with.
-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
PRIMEQ
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/25/2018 08:53 PM CDT
Are you willing to comment on how much of all this a typical, scholarly but non-Necromancer character would know? Father Soraent covered the dangers of High Sorcery, but I'm wondering about the demonic and "evil act" parts. There aren't exactly a lot of IG books on these subjects, but I would expect that at least the Temple has a thing or two to say about them (accurate or not).
- Navesi
- Navesi
REAVER1
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/26/2018 04:34 AM CDT
>He's referring to a discussion some of us have been having on a private Discord server.
Ah. Lovely.
Ah. Lovely.
DR-ARMIFER
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/26/2018 08:56 AM CDT
>>Are you willing to comment on how much of all this a typical, scholarly but non-Necromancer character would know? Father Soraent covered the dangers of High Sorcery, but I'm wondering about the demonic and "evil act" parts.
ICly the details wouldn't be commonly known, except in the most bombastic way. The Necromancers are threatening our lives! Cavorting with demons! Curdling our milk!
Some of what I discussed wouldn't really be known by Necromancers either. I was asked OOCly for setting information so I was more open than I would normally be about things like the nature of Transcendence and the ugliness of Thanatology, which are not necessarily known to anyone at all ICly.
-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
ICly the details wouldn't be commonly known, except in the most bombastic way. The Necromancers are threatening our lives! Cavorting with demons! Curdling our milk!
Some of what I discussed wouldn't really be known by Necromancers either. I was asked OOCly for setting information so I was more open than I would normally be about things like the nature of Transcendence and the ugliness of Thanatology, which are not necessarily known to anyone at all ICly.
-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
PRIMEQ
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/26/2018 04:43 PM CDT
>>ICly the details wouldn't be commonly known, except in the most bombastic way. The Necromancers are threatening our lives! Cavorting with demons! Curdling our milk!
Thank you Armifer, that's as I expected. These and the rest of your comments are greatly appreciated.
- Navesi
Thank you Armifer, that's as I expected. These and the rest of your comments are greatly appreciated.
- Navesi
SARAGOS
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/26/2018 05:26 PM CDT
>ICly the details wouldn't be commonly known, except in the most bombastic way. The Necromancers are threatening our lives! Cavorting with demons! Curdling our milk!
>Some of what I discussed wouldn't really be known by Necromancers either. I was asked OOCly for setting information so I was more open than I would normally be about things like the nature of Transcendence and the ugliness of Thanatology, which are not necessarily known to anyone at all ICly.
>-Armifer
Thanks for the responses, Armifer. I (and others, I'm sure) really appreciate it.
I'm having difficulty coming up with a way that feels right to say what I want, but I guess I'll sum it up this way. My prior is that it's pretty difficult for your average character to be accepting of Necromancers. At the very least, Lyras happened, what, just over 30 years ago at this point? That's well within living memory, especially with Empathic Longevity. Even young characters would have heard stories. Sociologically, there would be all sorts of folk tales and legends among the commonfolk. Traumatic tales of the dead walking. Everyone would know what they were doing when that stuff happened. It would be a cultural touchstone. IIRC something like a third of the population is supposed to have died during that time. Adding to that, every societal institution leans towards Necromancers being unalloyed evil. The Temple, surely, but even the government and the apparent mobs going around and hunting them down. Almost any character of a given age, statistically, has probably lost some theoretical NPC in that business.
It's a really hard sell to get from there to even listening to what someone has to say, much less tolerance.
From an OOC perspective, I feel like it would be better for the game if there were more shades of grey in Necromancer morality, more possibility for tolerance. I think it would be better, in general, if Necro players had a more obviously murky option and a more pariah option, I think that would be ideal, and allow more people to get what they want out of the situation. I'd like to have an excuse for my character to have communication some legitimate interactions, at least something that will give me some reasonable explanation for why my character is even listening to a Necromancer talk, even if he doesn't support them.
Look, I really like your lore - a lot. To be perfectly honest, it's one of the things that keeps sustaining my interest in this game. I'm not saying that not to curry favor but to make it clear that I'm not complaining about any of this stuff. I really like the lore, the stories, everything. It's deliciously complex. But there's been talk lately of changing the Necromancer paradigm, of lessening the severity of the pariah status, and if that's going to happen, then some sort of IC bone needs to be thrown. Because if OOC it's not even clear that Philosophers aren't burning down the house, IC there are few (any?) non-Necromancer sources to suggest they're doing anything but.
- Saragos
>Some of what I discussed wouldn't really be known by Necromancers either. I was asked OOCly for setting information so I was more open than I would normally be about things like the nature of Transcendence and the ugliness of Thanatology, which are not necessarily known to anyone at all ICly.
>-Armifer
Thanks for the responses, Armifer. I (and others, I'm sure) really appreciate it.
I'm having difficulty coming up with a way that feels right to say what I want, but I guess I'll sum it up this way. My prior is that it's pretty difficult for your average character to be accepting of Necromancers. At the very least, Lyras happened, what, just over 30 years ago at this point? That's well within living memory, especially with Empathic Longevity. Even young characters would have heard stories. Sociologically, there would be all sorts of folk tales and legends among the commonfolk. Traumatic tales of the dead walking. Everyone would know what they were doing when that stuff happened. It would be a cultural touchstone. IIRC something like a third of the population is supposed to have died during that time. Adding to that, every societal institution leans towards Necromancers being unalloyed evil. The Temple, surely, but even the government and the apparent mobs going around and hunting them down. Almost any character of a given age, statistically, has probably lost some theoretical NPC in that business.
It's a really hard sell to get from there to even listening to what someone has to say, much less tolerance.
From an OOC perspective, I feel like it would be better for the game if there were more shades of grey in Necromancer morality, more possibility for tolerance. I think it would be better, in general, if Necro players had a more obviously murky option and a more pariah option, I think that would be ideal, and allow more people to get what they want out of the situation. I'd like to have an excuse for my character to have communication some legitimate interactions, at least something that will give me some reasonable explanation for why my character is even listening to a Necromancer talk, even if he doesn't support them.
Look, I really like your lore - a lot. To be perfectly honest, it's one of the things that keeps sustaining my interest in this game. I'm not saying that not to curry favor but to make it clear that I'm not complaining about any of this stuff. I really like the lore, the stories, everything. It's deliciously complex. But there's been talk lately of changing the Necromancer paradigm, of lessening the severity of the pariah status, and if that's going to happen, then some sort of IC bone needs to be thrown. Because if OOC it's not even clear that Philosophers aren't burning down the house, IC there are few (any?) non-Necromancer sources to suggest they're doing anything but.
- Saragos
ACIDICSNAIL
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/26/2018 08:20 PM CDT
>>But there's been talk lately of changing the Necromancer paradigm, of lessening the severity of the pariah status, and if that's going to happen, then some sort of IC bone needs to be thrown.
I'd like to hear Armifer's current-year take on this as well, because I know in the past (a couple of years ago) he commented on his original plans that were essentially what you're asking for. Here's what he said then:
>>Another aspect that got dropped due to time is that the fervent persecution of the Necromancers was meant to take a fairly early step down when Rutilor would smite the Hounds of Rutilor for acts of grave injustice and, broadly, crimes against humanity in his name (protip: in a world where the gods are verifiably real, do not burn villages and kill children in the name of the Light Aspect of Justice).
>>The whole situation evolved, and I use that exact example because it's no longer relevant / going to happen, but the intention all along was that the whole conflict/dynamic would evolve and become Something Else rather thasn get stuck at Lyras-level persecution.
>>But that required Plot, and Plot required my personal Effort, and etc etc didn't work out.
If anyone wants to read that thread it's here: http://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/The%20Necromancers/General%20Discussions/view/6557
Interactions between team holy and necromancers will always be difficult as long as one side is 100% deadset on purging the other. Something is going to have to give on the holy side of things to give them more wiggle room on how they can interact without feeling like they're going against the game's lore. From the necromancers' perspective this wiggle room already exists. As a necromancer you can treat the Immortals and their faithful as your enemies, or just as something that should be treated with caution on your way to realizing your goals. You can even try to get back into their good graces as a Redeemed - good luck with that. You have options as a necromancer that team holy does not.
Unfortunately the whole situation has given rise to OOC frustration/resentment among some players. No one likes to think that the character they've built is being compromised by a change of lore, or to be told that they should play a different guild if they want to RP with people.
I think the best way forward is to provide those IG/IC avenues and opportunities for people to evolve their characters, or simply reaffirm their position in a new situation. Rutilor striking down the Hounds wouldn't have erased the justified fear/hatred people have of necromancy, but it would have been a foot in the door for giving people more options. We need something like that.
I'd like to hear Armifer's current-year take on this as well, because I know in the past (a couple of years ago) he commented on his original plans that were essentially what you're asking for. Here's what he said then:
>>Another aspect that got dropped due to time is that the fervent persecution of the Necromancers was meant to take a fairly early step down when Rutilor would smite the Hounds of Rutilor for acts of grave injustice and, broadly, crimes against humanity in his name (protip: in a world where the gods are verifiably real, do not burn villages and kill children in the name of the Light Aspect of Justice).
>>The whole situation evolved, and I use that exact example because it's no longer relevant / going to happen, but the intention all along was that the whole conflict/dynamic would evolve and become Something Else rather thasn get stuck at Lyras-level persecution.
>>But that required Plot, and Plot required my personal Effort, and etc etc didn't work out.
If anyone wants to read that thread it's here: http://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/The%20Necromancers/General%20Discussions/view/6557
Interactions between team holy and necromancers will always be difficult as long as one side is 100% deadset on purging the other. Something is going to have to give on the holy side of things to give them more wiggle room on how they can interact without feeling like they're going against the game's lore. From the necromancers' perspective this wiggle room already exists. As a necromancer you can treat the Immortals and their faithful as your enemies, or just as something that should be treated with caution on your way to realizing your goals. You can even try to get back into their good graces as a Redeemed - good luck with that. You have options as a necromancer that team holy does not.
Unfortunately the whole situation has given rise to OOC frustration/resentment among some players. No one likes to think that the character they've built is being compromised by a change of lore, or to be told that they should play a different guild if they want to RP with people.
I think the best way forward is to provide those IG/IC avenues and opportunities for people to evolve their characters, or simply reaffirm their position in a new situation. Rutilor striking down the Hounds wouldn't have erased the justified fear/hatred people have of necromancy, but it would have been a foot in the door for giving people more options. We need something like that.
RAIKIS
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/26/2018 08:51 PM CDT
I feel like a lot of the impetus is being lain at the feet of the lore to allow everyone to accept necromancers. The groundwork has already been laid for you.
https://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/Discussions%20with%20DragonRealms%20Staff%20and%20Players/Responses%20to%20GM%60Official%20Announcements/view/9142
>>Ilithi has a long history of being more tolerant of some types of forbidden and otherwise illegal practices (or at least ones that are way more forbidden or illegal elsewhere), especially if it's kept not particularly blatant and isn't being used to harm any of the citizenry. This is why Aemmin was the one in the most recent events trying to convince the other Provincial leaders of the wisdom of her approach. She thinks that the truly hardline tacks being taken by many others (exemplified by Therengia and the High Temple especially) may well be more dangerous than monitoring for true antagonistic or explosive uses of these practices (sorcery, shifting, necromancy, pretty much every freaky thing you can name outside of explicit demonic/extra planar entity pacts) and dealing with those swiftly and without mercy, while simultaneously treating the lesser practitioners of these acts as people to be watched and attempted to be persuaded to return to society's more accepted practices. She thinks that the ultra hardline approach is pushing people to more and more extreme associations and actions, due to them feeling that there is no way for them to exist with current society, or to ever be redeemed. She does not want to snuggle with Liches. She does not welcome Jomay. She's not BFFs with the Children of Kaelstrom. She just believes that there is the potential to help prevent people from becoming the next version of those, or trying to join up with them if things are handled differently. This willingness to try to redeem the lesser threats is reflected in them having the fastest speed at which the citizenry there are willing to move past a socially outrageous offense.<<
Less severe interactions are provided viable RP background right there. Its a hard-liner stance to refuse to accept anything other than the options of good=live and evil=die/red spiral that perhaps needs to be assessed. How virtuous is the man who will not forgive or seek to reform the criminal? Society doesn't hang every criminal they have. They imprison them or they put them on probation. I suggest taking Ilithi's lead and actively pursue alternate methods if you are looking to open RP options for characters other than "let's kill each other."
Nefis
https://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/Discussions%20with%20DragonRealms%20Staff%20and%20Players/Responses%20to%20GM%60Official%20Announcements/view/9142
>>Ilithi has a long history of being more tolerant of some types of forbidden and otherwise illegal practices (or at least ones that are way more forbidden or illegal elsewhere), especially if it's kept not particularly blatant and isn't being used to harm any of the citizenry. This is why Aemmin was the one in the most recent events trying to convince the other Provincial leaders of the wisdom of her approach. She thinks that the truly hardline tacks being taken by many others (exemplified by Therengia and the High Temple especially) may well be more dangerous than monitoring for true antagonistic or explosive uses of these practices (sorcery, shifting, necromancy, pretty much every freaky thing you can name outside of explicit demonic/extra planar entity pacts) and dealing with those swiftly and without mercy, while simultaneously treating the lesser practitioners of these acts as people to be watched and attempted to be persuaded to return to society's more accepted practices. She thinks that the ultra hardline approach is pushing people to more and more extreme associations and actions, due to them feeling that there is no way for them to exist with current society, or to ever be redeemed. She does not want to snuggle with Liches. She does not welcome Jomay. She's not BFFs with the Children of Kaelstrom. She just believes that there is the potential to help prevent people from becoming the next version of those, or trying to join up with them if things are handled differently. This willingness to try to redeem the lesser threats is reflected in them having the fastest speed at which the citizenry there are willing to move past a socially outrageous offense.<<
Less severe interactions are provided viable RP background right there. Its a hard-liner stance to refuse to accept anything other than the options of good=live and evil=die/red spiral that perhaps needs to be assessed. How virtuous is the man who will not forgive or seek to reform the criminal? Society doesn't hang every criminal they have. They imprison them or they put them on probation. I suggest taking Ilithi's lead and actively pursue alternate methods if you are looking to open RP options for characters other than "let's kill each other."
Nefis
SASSERSASS
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/26/2018 09:17 PM CDT
>Interactions between team holy and necromancers will always be difficult as long as one side is 100% deadset on purging the other.
I don't think that this is necessarily always a bad thing.
As you say, there realistically isn't a lot of wiggle-room for people on the Team Holy spectrum to have amicable relationships with Necromancers. That, of course, doesn't stop people from playing Clerics or Paladins who fall for some reason or another (although I wish there were more long-term consequences for making that sort of decision).
But is that bad? Team Good and Team Holy aren't always on the same track, although they may overlap at times to varying degrees. There should be room in the narrative for different attitudes toward Necromancers. Characters who are friendly to Philosophers and/or sympathetic to their goals. Characters who don't exactly love Necromancers, but who might be willing to work with them (if only temporarily) to defeat a greater foe. Characters who want to redeem or reform Necromancers in a peaceful way. Characters who have no qualms about working with the Perverse. And characters who hold a hard-line stance against Necromancers, as well. I understand wanting to provide more opportunities for friendly (or at least non-combative) relationships, but there is absolutely an important place in the story for enemies of Necromancy just as much as there should be room for allies.
I don't think that this is necessarily always a bad thing.
As you say, there realistically isn't a lot of wiggle-room for people on the Team Holy spectrum to have amicable relationships with Necromancers. That, of course, doesn't stop people from playing Clerics or Paladins who fall for some reason or another (although I wish there were more long-term consequences for making that sort of decision).
But is that bad? Team Good and Team Holy aren't always on the same track, although they may overlap at times to varying degrees. There should be room in the narrative for different attitudes toward Necromancers. Characters who are friendly to Philosophers and/or sympathetic to their goals. Characters who don't exactly love Necromancers, but who might be willing to work with them (if only temporarily) to defeat a greater foe. Characters who want to redeem or reform Necromancers in a peaceful way. Characters who have no qualms about working with the Perverse. And characters who hold a hard-line stance against Necromancers, as well. I understand wanting to provide more opportunities for friendly (or at least non-combative) relationships, but there is absolutely an important place in the story for enemies of Necromancy just as much as there should be room for allies.
DR-ARMIFER
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/26/2018 10:03 PM CDT
I think that there being two hardcore groups of people that are antagonistic to each other, surrounded by a cloud of possible other RP interpretations, is not necessarily a bad idea and can lead to excellent roleplaying opportunities.
That said, there are two things we need to keep in mind.
1) The overall direction we're heading in DR is toward more of a group-centric, less inter-PC conflict model. We have not yet fully explored what this is going to mean for Necromancers policy, mechanically, or RP wise, except that that's where we're going and we know Necros were fundamentally designed in an opposing way.
2) It bears emphasis that the kind of good faith, open communication about intentions and boundaries we're seeing here will continue to be necessary for healthy conflict RP. Historically it has been considered that you opt into conflict by virtue of playing a Necromancer, and that Necromancers can conflict by the same virtue; this assumption could stand to change toward making sure people desire to be in the scenes they are involved in.
-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
That said, there are two things we need to keep in mind.
1) The overall direction we're heading in DR is toward more of a group-centric, less inter-PC conflict model. We have not yet fully explored what this is going to mean for Necromancers policy, mechanically, or RP wise, except that that's where we're going and we know Necros were fundamentally designed in an opposing way.
2) It bears emphasis that the kind of good faith, open communication about intentions and boundaries we're seeing here will continue to be necessary for healthy conflict RP. Historically it has been considered that you opt into conflict by virtue of playing a Necromancer, and that Necromancers can conflict by the same virtue; this assumption could stand to change toward making sure people desire to be in the scenes they are involved in.
-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
ACIDICSNAIL
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/26/2018 10:38 PM CDT
>>It bears emphasis that the kind of good faith, open communication about intentions and boundaries we're seeing here will continue to be necessary for healthy conflict RP.
Absolutely. I believe most people already adhere to this, but it bears emphasizing again. No matter whether you play a dogmatic cleric, a demon-worshiping necromancer, or anything in between, we all need to remember that the person behind the text is a human being playing DR for fun. The moment that heated emotions stop being IC and move toward being OOC we need to take a step back and reexamine things.
I'm very lucky that most of my OOC interactions with people have been perfectly pleasant, but I speak regularly with people where this isn't the case and it's very troubling. The player and the character need to be separate entities if we're going to have a healthy playing environment. This is especially true where necromancers are involved, but it goes beyond that into the rest of the game as well.
Absolutely. I believe most people already adhere to this, but it bears emphasizing again. No matter whether you play a dogmatic cleric, a demon-worshiping necromancer, or anything in between, we all need to remember that the person behind the text is a human being playing DR for fun. The moment that heated emotions stop being IC and move toward being OOC we need to take a step back and reexamine things.
I'm very lucky that most of my OOC interactions with people have been perfectly pleasant, but I speak regularly with people where this isn't the case and it's very troubling. The player and the character need to be separate entities if we're going to have a healthy playing environment. This is especially true where necromancers are involved, but it goes beyond that into the rest of the game as well.
PRIMEQ
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
09/26/2018 11:22 PM CDT
>>I feel like a lot of the impetus is being lain at the feet of the lore to allow everyone to accept necromancers. The groundwork has already been laid for you.
You're right, a ton of groundwork has been laid in various ways. However, every individual character is unique, and when you've been playing a particular character for years, that tends to mean that you have a detailed history built up, sometimes with more obstacles than others. Some of us are looking for more ways to open up our characters, which may or may not fit in with what others have done in the past or with Ilithi's philosophy -- especially for those of us not from Ilithi.
In short, we are aware of various paths and are exploring and asking questions at the moment to expand our knowledge. :)
- Navesi
You're right, a ton of groundwork has been laid in various ways. However, every individual character is unique, and when you've been playing a particular character for years, that tends to mean that you have a detailed history built up, sometimes with more obstacles than others. Some of us are looking for more ways to open up our characters, which may or may not fit in with what others have done in the past or with Ilithi's philosophy -- especially for those of us not from Ilithi.
In short, we are aware of various paths and are exploring and asking questions at the moment to expand our knowledge. :)
- Navesi
ZIAN1
Re: Necromancy and the Necessity of Evil
01/09/2019 02:21 AM CST
Necrorezzing this to ask:
Does the ritual spell work involved with altering the Necromancer intitiate's nervous system possess any spell design influence from the Arte of the Black Cockatrice?
