Ampersand: Wizards and Worlds

Finally! Rules (that only need slight flavor text changes) for making necromancers.

I can totally see how they would create "summoners" and let players do the necro rules on their own, since they are shying so hard away from PG-13. "If you choose an alignment for your character, you should pick either good or lawful good" is in the PHB, after all.

We shall see...

evilbob said:

since they are shying so hard away from PG-13. "If you choose an alignment for your character, you should pick either good or lawful good" is in the PHB, after all.

Click to expand...

For as much as 2e (well, early 2e at least) often gets maligned as being goody goody in some ways for PR purposes to appease public hysteria and angry mothers at the time, 4e is just being inexplicably blatant about a strictly pushed definition of what 'proper' PCs should or should not do, or to use their own words from the ads, "play the game the way we play the game".

Want to play a cambion? You can't be evil, you need to be angsty and fighting for good and rebelling against your birth because that's what a "hero" does. Want to play an assassin? Heroes don't do that. Want to command armies of the undead against an evil god's followers to save a good kingdom? You can't do that because undead are evil and heroes don't command the undead. And so on and so on, effectively.

It's silly and heavy handed. I really hope they can break away from that sort of straightjacket presumed playstyle and game atmosphere.

So you guys saying you want some evil character stuff?


A while ago me and a co-worker were talking about the idea that sometimes "evil" is merely a matter of perspective. To humans, a shark that eats people off the beach may be bad or evil, but to the shark it is just doing what it does. Maybe orcs and giants are the same? Is it just in an orc's nature to attack and plunder villages. From the orc's perspective they are just being orcs and it the humans and dwarves are the bad guys. I thought this idea could create some interesting ideas for characters. In a simple sense I like to think of it as cowboys and indians (I know not to PC but it works). To the cowboys, it is the indians who are the savages that interfere in the cowboys "civilized" ways, although I would say now it is generally thought that the indians were the peaceful society who was pushed to the the point of warfare and sometime savagery. What if the this was the same with the struggle between races in D&D. What if the heroes thought they were doing good plundering dungeons and killing monsters only to later realize they were actually on the wrong side of the fight. I'll freely admit my initial thought was taken from WoW (Horde is not evil by nature, they are just on a different side of the same coin) but I think this notion could be fun in a D&D campaign.

I like the idea of the evil character who seeks redemption. What if halfway through a particular campaign the hero, who thought they were on a quest from a noble lord, starts to realize that they are actually working for a despot? Instead of working as hired heroes, they realize they are actually hired muscle beating up on the good guys. Could make for a fun and dynamic campaign as well as good character development as the PCs must seek true redemption from their victims and work to defeat their former employer.

Anyhow some random thoughts of mine triggered by the thread

Shemeska said:

For as much as 2e (well, early 2e at least) often gets maligned as being goody goody in some ways for PR purposes to appease public hysteria and angry mothers at the time, 4e is just being inexplicably blatant about a strictly pushed definition of what 'proper' PCs should or should not do, or to use their own words from the ads, "play the game the way we play the game".

Want to play a cambion? You can't be evil, you need to be angsty and fighting for good and rebelling against your birth because that's what a "hero" does. Want to play an assassin? Heroes don't do that. Want to command armies of the undead against an evil god's followers to save a good kingdom? You can't do that because undead are evil and heroes don't command the undead. And so on and so on, effectively.

It's silly and heavy handed. I really hope they can break away from that sort of straightjacket presumed playstyle and game atmosphere.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that you'll be ecstatic to know that they've released a channel divinity feat and paragon path for an evil deity.

Scott -- I'm making a forked thread to discuss your thoughts further, since I don't want to derail this one.

Scott_Rouse said:

I like the idea of the evil character who seeks redemption. What if halfway through a particular campaign the hero, who thought they were on a quest from a noble lord, starts to realize that they are actually working for a despot? Instead of working as hired heroes, they realize they are actually hired muscle beating up on the good guys. Could make for a fun and dynamic campaign as well as good character development as the PCs must seek true redemption from their victims and work to defeat their former employer.

Anyhow some random thoughts of mine triggered by the thread

Click to expand...

You must be in some amazing campaigns. The people in my campaign (in which I'm player) would simply shrug their shoulders and go on. Or maybe blackmail their employer.

I've got to play in one of these heroic campaigns where the noble heroes save the realm because its the right thing to do. In my campaign we usually save the world because of self preservation, money or boredom.

I don't really see the point in branding certian powers Evil or Good. That's what 4e was getting away from: alignment-specific spells/feats/whatnot.

But then, I honestly don't consider Necromancer powers Evil. Not even with a capital E Evil of Cosmic evil.

I do think there's a lot of dissonance with the idea that hell-pact tielfing warlocks on the one hand are A-OK, but "Zombies are just cheap labor golems" necromancers are danced around.

I mean, every kid on Halloween knows what a Skeleton is, but selling ones soul for magical power is....a little more PG-13.

Scott_Rouse said:

...I like the idea of the evil character who seeks redemption. What if halfway through a particular campaign the hero, who thought they were on a quest from a noble lord, starts to realize that they are actually working for a despot? Instead of working as hired heroes, they realize they are actually hired muscle beating up on the good guys. Could make for a fun and dynamic campaign as well as good character development as the PCs must seek true redemption from their victims and work to defeat their former employer.

Anyhow some random thoughts of mine triggered by the thread

Click to expand...

I'm surprised that nobody else has said this (or perhaps they just have better self control than me) but ... aaaaaagggghhh ... I can't help myself ... (one failed Will check later....)



Was any of this inspired by real world influences?





(I'm so ashamed of myself.)

I seriously doubt that WotC is going to send the Gaming Police to your door to break it down if you play an evil campaign or an evil character.

4e focuses, however, on the heroic. Oftentimes, evil does not equal heroic. But, hey, there's nothing keeping you from eschewing heroism in favor of evilness.