Wee Jas and Necros

[LanSlyde]

So, I've been thinking. I understand that Wee Jas has many necromancers that worship her, but if you really think about it her stance on death is exactly that. Her clerics preside over funerals and are in the habit of keeping dead things dead, not undead. So why is it that every text states that many of her followers are necromancers and their ilk? What exactly does the The Stern Lady think about her followers that return the dead to unlife?

[Dusk Eclipse]

IIRC she is against people raising undead without consent of the person/body, so if you are a Cleric of Wee Jas and want to Lich-ify/vampirefy or go through the ritual of cumifixation, cool, just don't raise the city's cemetery unless you have permission from the people (A speak with dead spell might be just enough)

[Yora]

I think the common interpretation that often shows up in official materials is, that you don't animate other peoples bodies without their permission. But even inside those limitations, there is still a very large room for all kinds of studies into the nature of undeath.
Undeath is where magic transcends the boundaries of life and death, so it is obviously of great interest to priests of a deity of magic and death. Understanding how magic and life force are connected and depend on each other, and things like that. The priests are experts in putting to rest accidental cases of undead rising and causing trouble, but they are also interested in extending life through undeath and making the remains of the departed being put to a useful purpose.
I would imagine most of the low-rank temple workers to become skeletons after death to continue serving the temple.

I would think of the egyptian gods Osiris and Anubis, who also oversee the process of the dead entering the afterlife. And Osiris, basically is an undead god, living in the afterlife as a mummy because his body was torn appart. But being dead does not stop him from performing a very important role in the world and for the souls of humans.
Anubis is kind of his assistant on the other side, who prepares the dead for their journey to be recieved in Osiris' realm.

[Coidzor]

Animals have no will and their bodies are a lot more useful as undead than humans or dwarves or elves anyway.

[LanSlyde]

Animals have no will and their bodies are a lot more useful as undead than humans or dwarves or elves anyway.

This thread isn't really about the usefulness of the various forms undead can take. |-_-|


I think the common interpretation that often shows up in official materials is, that you don't animate other peoples bodies without their permission. But even inside those limitations, there is still a very large room for all kinds of studies into the nature of undeath.
Undeath is where magic transcends the boundaries of life and death, so it is obviously of great interest to priests of a deity of magic and death. Understanding how magic and life force are connected and depend on each other, and things like that. The priests are experts in putting to rest accidental cases of undead rising and causing trouble, but they are also interested in extending life through undeath and making the remains of the departed being put to a useful purpose.
I would imagine most of the low-rank temple workers to become skeletons after death to continue serving the temple.

I see, that would make sense, it even states in the flavor text for RKVs that many of them return to the service of the church as undead. So would it be out of character for a dread necromancer of the Jasite faith to be sent into a dungeon to an abandoned city to clear out all the undeads roaming the place so actual living things can move in to repopulate?


IIRC she is against people raising undead without consent of the person/body, so if you are a Cleric of Wee Jas and want to Lich-ify/vampirefy or go through the ritual of cumifixation, cool, just don't raise the city's cemetery unless you have permission from the people (A speak with dead spell might be just enough)

Hmm, what about hostiles? Say your attacked for whatever reason and your not the transgressor, would it be too much of a stretch to claim that you are putting them to work to make up for their crimes in life (such as trying to murder you for whatever reason)? Under the notion that once their tasks are complete you lay them to rest properly of course.

[Yora]

I see, that would make sense, it even states in the flavor text for RKVs that many of them return to the service of the church as undead. So would it be out of character for a dread necromancer of the Jasite faith to be sent into a dungeon to an abandoned city to clear out all the undeads roaming the place so actual living things can move in to repopulate?
Sounds like they are an uncontrolled infestation that poses a danger to the public. In that case getting the specialists from the temple to resore safety would sound quite obvious.
Unless it's actually a community of intelligent undead who are minding their own business. Then just moving in and kicking the residents out of their home would probably not be okay with the priests.

[Coidzor]

This thread isn't really about the usefulness of the various forms undead can take. |-_-|

You don't run into the moral, morale, and sundry issues of using sophonts/sapient beings with animals however.


I see, that would make sense, it even states in the flavor text for RKVs that many of them return to the service of the church as undead. So would it be out of character for a dread necromancer of the Jasite faith to be sent into a dungeon to an abandoned city to clear out all the undeads roaming the place so actual living things can move in to repopulate?

Infestation of problematic, uncooperative, and hostile undead? No, no problem. Good PR move for the church too.


Hmm, what about hostiles? Say your attacked for whatever reason and your not the transgressor, would it be too much of a stretch to claim that you are putting them to work to make up for their crimes in life (such as trying to murder you for whatever reason)? Under the notion that once their tasks are complete you lay them to rest properly of course.

Certainly there would have to be some factions within the church that would make that argument.

[hymer]

Jasidans Jasadin don't always need the specific consent of the 'body', though that will do nicely. The raising of undead needs to be done in an orderly way, with compliance to laws and customs. If it's legal to raise people against their will (say, invasion calls for emergency troops to be raised and the law supports reanimation, or if certain people like convicts or slaves lose the right to say no to having their corpse reanimated), then Jasidans are fine with that raising.

Edit: I come across kinda sure of myself there. I'll see if I can't find where I got that.

Second Edit: Can't actually find anything to support what I wrote, so I retract it. In DM 350 I find she is averse to using Suel souls for animation of undead by mages, and that her clerics are permitted (as mentioned by others) to animate those who are/were willing.

[Psyren]

Am I missing something? Her dogma only says to respect the dead (especially dead spellcasters) - she doesn't prohibit necromancy at all. In fact, the Ruby Order in Libris Mortis is full of necromancers and is both dedicated to her and pretty well-respected.

[LanSlyde]

Alright, thank you all for the input. I think I have enough to work with now.

[Black Cross]

Well, until you take into consideration the clearly missed point here; the character in question isn't just your typical necromancer, but one of the "Dread" variety. Say what you will about fluff and crunch, but these types of necromancers fill a certain character niche. That is, they serve as that creepy, sociopathic party member who "roots about in graveyards, searching out moldering components for their obscene spells" and "calls upon restless, tormented spirits of the dead, seeking their arcane secrets." :smalleek:

Regardless of the aforementioned information, the "following questionable moral paths" aspect of the class is clearly called out in the fluff entry, as well as in the alignment section. Sure, most PCs can manage to stay neutral, but only by "balancing out evil acts with good intentions". These aren't the kind of people to go about asking nicely before they defile your body with their necromantic powers, or to really be bothered with petty notions like courtesy or respect for their undead servants. Kind of where the "Dread" moniker comes from... :smallamused:

That being said, I may be approaching this from a bit of a biased standpoint given my relative abhorrence for players that choose one type of character class over a similar one simply for the better class features without intending to play the chosen class in a manner befitting said class. Role-play vs Roll-play, if you will. :smallwink:

In this regard, the current assembly is correct. RAW provides that, no, Wee-Jas does not just randomly drop the hammer on necros. However, in following with the late Mr. Gygax, our DM has never been very RAW-centric, and you should know better. :smalltongue:

[Dusk Eclipse]

Fluff is mutable and all that....

[Black Cross]

Ah, yes. "Mutable Fluff": a purportedly inconsequential type of gaming mechanic that can supposedly be ignored by simply pretending it doesn't exist, all the while sticking one's fingers in their ears and disregarding the possibility that their GM might say otherwise. Meh, we have have dismissed these claims.

Whether or not one can simply ignore fluff has been and always will be GM prerogative. It's the GM's world, so he is always the final arbiter on matters pertaining to his creations, and ours (mine and LanSlyde's) has always been particularly fond of fluff.

That said, I hadn't intended for this to become a debate over crunch vs fluff. I'd merely pointed out that, in accordance with our GMs predilections for fluff and story over solid crunch and numbers, one has to consider more than the simple question of, "Does RAW allow for it?"

[ThiagoMartell]

Ah, yes. "Mutable Fluff": a purportedly inconsequential type of gaming mechanic that can supposedly be ignored by simply pretending it doesn't exist, all the while sticking one's fingers in their ears and disregarding the possibility that their GM might say otherwise. Meh, we have have dismissed these claims.

Whether or not one can simply ignore fluff has been and always will be GM prerogative. It's the GM's world, so he is always the final arbiter on matters pertaining to his creations, and ours (mine and LanSlyde's) has always been particularly fond of fluff.

That said, I hadn't intended for this to become a debate over crunch vs fluff. I'd merely pointed out that, in accordance with our GMs predilections for fluff and story over solid crunch and numbers, one has to consider more than the simple question of, "Does RAW allow for it?"

Very, very well said, mister.

[Psyren]

Even so, people tend to get irked when terms like "role-play vs. roll-play" are used. Understandably so, since it's a false dichotomy.

For myself, I don't see a Dread Necromancer as somehow being inherently any more or less palatable to WJ than a regular one. Heroes of Horror itself lists Wee Jas as the first common deity for them to worship. Personally, I think the apellation of "Dread" was more because they already (and quite unfortunately) used "True Necromancer" elsewhere.

[LanSlyde]

Cross, while I am fully aware of how Terumitsu treats fluff, you forget that fluff can be ignored with a well-written back story. |^_^|

So yes good sir, I will put my fingers in my ears and go "nanananananahahaaalalala cant here you".

Also, your biased standpoint is rather silly, considering that the character in question was selected via flipping through random books until I called off one she thought was interesting.

Also.


Very, very well said, mister.

Don't encourage him |-_-|, it just means I'll have to continue this IRL.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Ah, yes. "Mutable Fluff": a purportedly inconsequential type of gaming mechanic that can supposedly be ignored by simply pretending it doesn't exist, all the while sticking one's fingers in their ears and disregarding the possibility that their GM might say otherwise. Meh, we have have dismissed these claims.

Whether or not one can simply ignore fluff has been and always will be GM prerogative. It's the GM's world, so he is always the final arbiter on matters pertaining to his creations, and ours (mine and LanSlyde's) has always been particularly fond of fluff.

That said, I hadn't intended for this to become a debate over crunch vs fluff. I'd merely pointed out that, in accordance with our GMs predilections for fluff and story over solid crunch and numbers, one has to consider more than the simple question of, "Does RAW allow for it?"

I agree that re-fluffing something must be done with the DM's Permission and should be done with the DM him/herself to avoid unforeseen consequences. At the time of my post I didn't know you were LanSlyde's DM and that you put so much emphasis on fluff as written, so please try to understand my point of view. From what I've seen I assumed you were an uninvolved third party whose personal preferences didn't matter to LandSlyde's character, hence my comment about fluff being mutable; but now I know better.

Personally I don't think one must put so much emphasis on fluff unless it is intrinsically welded to the mechanics (from the top of my head, Exalted classes or Artificer); but if you do, more power to you I guess,



Even so, people tend to get irked when terms like "role-play vs. roll-play" are used. Understandably so, since it's a false dichotomy.

For myself, I don't see a Dread Necromancer as somehow being inherently any more or less palatable to WJ than a regular one. Heroes of Horror itself lists Wee Jas as the first common deity for them to worship. Personally, I think the apellation of "Dread" was more because they already (and quite unfortunately) used "True Necromancer" elsewhere.

I have to agree with Psyren here, roll-play vs. roleplay implies they are mutually exclusive and that irks me, a lot.
I will not deny that some people act that way; but please try to understand that not all of us who "roll-play" can't roleplay. I am not a good role-player while I am a decent optimizer I'll admit that; but I enjoy both parts of the game equally.

[LanSlyde]

I agree that re-fluffing something must be done with the DM's Permission and should be done with the DM him/herself to avoid unforeseen consequences. At the time of my post I didn't know you were LanSlyde's DM and that you put so much emphasis on fluff as written, so please try to understand my point of view. From what I've seen I assumed you were an uninvolved third party whose personal preferences didn't matter to LandSlyde's character, hence my comment about fluff being mutable; but now I know better.

Personally I don't think one must put so much emphasis on fluff unless it is intrinsically welded to the mechanics (from the top of my head, Exalted classes or Artificer); but if you do, more power to you I guess,


You misunderstand, he's not the current DM, he's a member of our group. The DM in question enjoys his fluff, but if you can come up with a flavorful and thematically appropriate way of ignoring it and he likes it he will let you roll with it. This whole debate between me and him was sparked by Ruby Blade btw.

[Dusk Eclipse]

You misunderstand, he's not the current DM, he's a member of our group. The DM in question enjoys his fluff, but if you can come up with a flavorful and thematically appropriate way of ignoring it and he likes it he will let you roll with it. This whole debate between me and him was sparked by Ruby Blade btw.

Oh I see, well then I believe you are re fluffing in a right way.

[Black Cross]

I politely urge you not to read too much into my replies concerning supposedly false dichotomy of "roll-play vs role-play". It's only false if the GM's coding is set to the value of such. Additionally, I had already pointed out that my approach to the topic was already steeped in bias by specifically stating that such was likely the case. On a further note, I would also like to point out that no single individual in this community, save for LanSlyde, was targeted by my comments. On top of this, I had absolutely no intent of insinuating that persons who enjoy optimization are incapable of engaging roleplay. Provided that this conclusion has been drawn based on my comments, I apologize for any misunderstanding.

That said, you purposefully attempting to rewrite your fluff for the sole purpose of attempting to extract yet another relic from our already overly gracious GM is quite inconsequential to my previous post. The primary function of my retort was to direct you to the fact that our GM is old, set in his ways (not a bad thing), and lenient when it comes to attempting to use backstory to acquire awesome treasures; he's not a pushover. Being a GM myself, and having gamed with Teru for quite a few years, I can tell you that he is unlikely to grant your request NOT based on whether or not you have a compelling backstory, but on the principle of game balance. You've built a fairly potent DN inside a campaign that will be RIFE with undead, and the party backing it is potent in its own right. Add to the mixture the fact that it's entirely up to the DM to let his party have access to ANY equipment (especially relics), and you're not likely to bleed anymore such power from T.

Now, with that out of the way, I would like to point out the part where I specifically stated that:


In this regard, the current assembly is correct. RAW provides that, no, Wee-Jas does not just randomly drop the hammer on necros. However, in following with the late Mr. Gygax, our DM has never been very RAW-centric, and you should know better. :smalltongue:

Peace be unto you, Playground. No harm was intended by this exchange.

[LanSlyde]

I politely urge you not to read too much into my replies concerning supposedly false dichotomy of "roll-play vs role-play". It's only false if the GM's coding is set to the value of such. Additionally, I had already pointed out that my approach to the topic was already steeped in bias by specifically stating that such was likely the case. On a further note, I would also like to point out that no single individual in this community, save for LanSlyde, was targeted by my comments. On top of this, I had absolutely no intent of insinuating that persons who enjoy optimization are incapable of engaging roleplay. Provided that this conclusion has been drawn based on my comments, I apologize for any misunderstanding.

That said, you purposefully attempting to rewrite your fluff for the sole purpose of attempting to extract yet another relic from our already overly gracious GM is quite inconsequential to my previous post. The primary function of my retort was to direct you to the fact that our GM is old, set in his ways (not a bad thing), and lenient when it comes to attempting to use backstory to acquire awesome treasures; he's not a pushover. Being a GM myself, and having gamed with Teru for quite a few years, I can tell you that he is unlikely to grant your request NOT based on whether or not you have a compelling backstory, but on the principle of game balance. You've built a fairly potent DN inside a campaign that will be RIFE with undead, and the party backing it is potent in its own right. Add to the mixture the fact that it's entirely up to the DM to let his party have access to ANY equipment (especially relics), and you're not likely to bleed anymore such power from T.


I suppose your right, regardless, im not altering anything with her build. It's too heavily steeped in backstory now.

[Coidzor]

I politely urge you not to read too much into my replies concerning supposedly false dichotomy of "roll-play vs role-play".

Then don't do it if you don't mean it, please. It's vexatious enough when the true believers get into that can of worms.

[Black Cross]

Then don't do it if you don't mean it, please. It's vexatious enough when the true believers get into that can of worms.

Sounds like a bad case of attempting to make mountains from molehills.

Instead, I offer the counter-argument that I could continue to utilize it as a base descriptive for my intent, such as it has been here. Also, one reading said text might also exercise a bit of rational restraint and not immediately delve into areas of supposition and finger pointing. We're perfectly free to disagree on any given topic, but that disagreement shouldn't lead to a censoring of my preferred methods of description unless it legitimately causes some manner of grievous offense.

That said, I believe the topic has concluded and that neither of us are/were really entitled to the "last word" that we've received. I move that we end the discussion here and allow this thread to die.

[Psyren]

I don't think anyone was "finger-pointing" (at least, I wasn't) nor was it a "grievous offense" - I was just pointing out that the term is generally seen as pejorative around here (just in case you may not have been aware) and therefore liable to put people's backs up. All communities have their quirks and ours is no exception.

For what it's worth, I'm fine with dropping it too. But there's no need to be so dismissive of other people's feelings either, no matter how flowery the post in which said dismissal is couched.

[karkus]

This thread isn't really about the usefulness of the various forms undead can take.

Yes, but he was referring to the fact that you don't have to worry about their consent if they're animals.

However, it was always my interpretation of Wee Jas that she was uncaring, much like Boccob. Is that not true?

[hamishspence]

Apparently Dragon 88- the first source to go into any detail on her- had her as LN- but with LE tendencies.

So she might not care too much about the morality of an action if it's lawful.

[Coidzor]

Sounds like a bad case of attempting to make mountains from molehills.

No, it's a request to not delve into something that Psyren has covered fairly fully unless you really mean to delve into it. For the future.

[Draken]

If nobody cared to mention yet, there is more to necromancy than raising undead. It also involves sapping and manipulating life (all those spells that deal ability damage, vampiric touch, Clone), souls (Soul Bind, Astral Projection, Magic Jar, Clone again), and outright ending life/unlife (Circle of Death, Undeath to Death).

There is also fear and cold intruding around a bit, but whatever.

It's not really difficult to be a necromancer and never make a single zombie in your whole career.