Priests and undead?

[rjshae]

After the latest cool update (#36), I began to wonder what the role of priests should be with regard to undead. It's traditional, and significant, for clerics in D&D to have a turn undead capability (or rebuke undead with 3e). But is that necessarily relevant for the PE setting? Should priests be required to cast spells to repel or command undead? Or should that ability be restricted to wizards? Perhaps the ability to manipulate the undead should be limited to priests of certain deities? Maybe a turn undead-like ability should be weakened somewhat, starting with a "hinder undead"-like ability that just makes the walking dead more hesitant to attack (for an attack/damage penalty)?

 

What do you think?

Edited December 19, 2012 by rjshae

[Osvir]

If facing a Necromancer who can command the dead, there could be a struggle for power in some way. Maybe not "Take Command" of the enemy Undead (That'd be the Cipher's role and/or the Wizards role no?).

 

A Priest (or Monk) could perhaps "Bless" the skeletons/the dead and give them "release" from their existence (e.g., killing them). Kind of how the curative spells in Final Fantasy games damage the Undead. Could this sort of "turning" make the Undead released give some sort of "benefit". Could one of the Souls you release from a significant Necromancers hold grant a Quest (Hidden Quest)?

[Alexjh]

I do quite like the "turn undead" ability of D&D, its one of the few things that, for me, gives priests "badass moments" which pretty much every other class has to a much greater degree. That being said, I don't necessarily think it has to be undead to get the same effect, depending on the setting you could do something similar with celestial/infernal beings, constructs, incorporeal creatures, elementals or even just folks who are opposite to your deities ethos.

 

That being said, undead remain the logical choice - particularly in a game about souls that one class would be able to repel soulless corpses.

[Osvir]

I do quite like the "turn undead" ability of D&D, its one of the few things that, for me, gives priests "badass moments" which pretty much every other class has to a much greater degree. That being said, I don't necessarily think it has to be undead to get the same effect, depending on the setting you could do something similar with celestial/infernal beings, constructs, incorporeal creatures, elementals or even just folks who are opposite to your deities ethos.

 

That being said, undead remain the logical choice - particularly in a game about souls that one class would be able to repel soulless corpses.

 

Well, are the corpses really soulless or are they souls bound or caged by a Necromancer inside the animated body? Shale was a great fun companion and had a very interesting quest tree

 

What is the Necromancer? A philosopher of the Soul? Is it possible to use it differently? Some might use it for science, scrying, looking into another man's soul (Cipher) and another might use Necromancy to "cleanse" someone's Sins (Monk), perhaps Necromancy is even part of a Paladin's ability to give "Salvation" or "Redemption" by a powerful "Hammer of Resolution" to the face. Eh... am I going off topic?

 

How micro-cosmic vs macro-cosmic is Necromancy, spiritually/physically/philosophically/scientifically?

Edited December 19, 2012 by Osvir

[Alexjh]

I do quite like the "turn undead" ability of D&D, its one of the few things that, for me, gives priests "badass moments" which pretty much every other class has to a much greater degree. That being said, I don't necessarily think it has to be undead to get the same effect, depending on the setting you could do something similar with celestial/infernal beings, constructs, incorporeal creatures, elementals or even just folks who are opposite to your deities ethos.

 

That being said, undead remain the logical choice - particularly in a game about souls that one class would be able to repel soulless corpses.

 

Well, are the corpses really soulless or are they souls bound or caged by a Necromancer inside the animated body? Shale was a great fun companion and had a very interesting quest tree

 

What is the Necromancer? A philosopher of the Soul? Is it possible to use it differently? Some might use it for science, scrying, looking into another man's soul (Cipher) and another might use Necromancy to "cleanse" someone's Sins (Monk), perhaps Necromancy is even part of a Paladin's ability to give "Salvation" or "Redemption" by a powerful "Hammer of Resolution" to the face. Eh... am I going off topic?

 

How micro-cosmic vs macro-cosmic is Necromancy, spiritually/physically/philosophically/scientifically?

 

I kind of see wizardry in general to vaguely equivical to doing science at university, some people might do something incredibly broad and make no particular specialisations, whereas someone might just find one thing SO interesting they dedicate themselves entirely to something like.... fishomancy (piscomancy?) with some very specific uses but generally impractical for anything but someone doing a job related to that. Necromancy is a bit weird though, I see it as a subject that at best gets you seen a bit odd and creepy, at worst like an abomination who needs to be stopped. It's not a vocation that people should be comfortable with by any means.

 

As to origin of the undead there are so many types that I don't think there is any definative answer. A turn undead spell should definitly be more effective against incorporeal undead (ghosts, shadows, spectres etc) as any magic would be directly against the soul rather than having a shell to resist the turn. In P:E I see these types as being either "loose" souls, or souls with some very loose bond to a certain "element". Similarly, it would be very effective against mindless undead like zombies and skeletons as they don't have any will of their own to resist with, these I see as the soul being converted into a powersource to fuel them without actually functioning as a working soul. When you get into the higher levels of things with Vampires, Wights and Liches inparticular its a bit different because they remain sentient, these are where they becoem very resistant as they have will, purpose, form and often magic. In the case of Liches inparticular I see this as having constructed spells to "lock their soul in" while a Vampire is perhaps more a specific "soul mutagen" that repurposes the soul into a new creature. Either way, you'd have to be spectacularly powerful to turn a Vampire or Lich, though a "turn" might still drain them somehow.

 

This is of course assuming any of these are in at all...

[Osvir]

Getting on the same page:

P:E Update #24

 

This is what I like to call a "Shakespeare"-Quote. Everything/Every word is important. A documentary in the actor's studio with... Dustin Hoffman, he explains that his Director first gave him a manuscript that Hoffman studied, then auditioned, then the Director said "Great, now do it again and highlight these passages" (The Director underlined every other word). Hoffman did as his Director told him, which in turn he said "Great! Now do it again and highlight ALL of the passages" (The Director then underlined every word). And that is how important Shakespeare's every single word and work is when you act one of Shakespeare's pieces.

Necromancy

Despite the assumed natural cycle of things, there are individuals in the world of Project Eternity who either want to know more about that cycle or who choose to alter that cycle. Broadly speaking, "necromancy" refers to any attempt to do either, whether that involves speaking with the soul of a dead mortal, attempting to tap into the unconscious past lives of a living soul, or to bind soul energy or a complete soul inside of a dead body.

 

These acts are viewed with differing levels of criticism depending on the culture. Many folk share the interest of necromancers and would like to understand more about the eternal cycle, but are also afraid of what they might learn. Some extremists are opposed to any and all necromancy, and tales say that a quiet and powerful cult that has worked for centuries to discredit, trap, and even murder necromancers for their efforts. To the people who oppose necromancy with such violent passion, mortal understanding should have limits, and they fear the consequences for the world should those limits be unraveled.

 

Some links to other information/knowledge/insights/thoughts etc and definitely related:

Alchemy (Wikipedia)

Necromancy (Wikipedia)

Shamanism (Wikipedia)

 

There are also scattered threads on the board specifically about Necromancy. Definitely scientific. I view Wizardry as altering scientific fabrics and molecules/atoms and similar, which Necromancy falls into as well (and is a deeper, more philosophical study of the fabrics). Necromancy = A scientist going so far to alter the DNA of someone, or even cloning a Sheep. In some ways viewed as the "Dark Side" of Wizardry.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Osvir

[Somna]

I wouldn't want Turn/Rebuke Undead itself but I think the mechanics of it could be used.

 

For example, your Priest picks a race. That race is the type that you can use the equivalent of Rebuke effects on. All other races and creature types you can use the Turn mechanics on. Both effects affect things within 60 feet. They would, of course, have to tone down the "Destroy" and "Command" effects a bit, so the results could be something like this:

 

Rebuke results:

Awe/Inspire - Affected beings have an easier time doing things in your presence (bonus to whatever)

Zealotry - Same as Awe/Inspire, plus a large bonus on one action.

 

Turn results:

Menace/Cower - Affected beings have a difficult time doing anything in your presence (penalty to whatever)

Bane - Affected beings can't approach the Turn area or target anything in it.

 

I didn't put too much thought into the balance aspect but something like that.

[Sacred_Path]

This is a tired cliché that can be easily avoided. From what we've heard about religions in P:E so far they seem very ambitious and might be more interested in the living than the (un)dead.

 

Therefore I'd like to see different views on undead among cults, from abhorrence because souls can be trapped in a rotten body to a budding interest in creating undead because it's seen as a way to make the wandering of souls useful to the living (by creating undead servants) to blissful ignorance of their existence because some see them as soulless, mindless containers of rotten flesh.

 

None of which needs to be represented in any way in a priest character's skill set.

[Osvir]

This is a tired cliché that can be easily avoided. From what we've heard about religions in P:E so far they seem very ambitious and might be more interested in the living than the (un)dead.

 

Therefore I'd like to see different views on undead among cults, from abhorrence because souls can be trapped in a rotten body to a budding interest in creating undead because it's seen as a way to make the wandering of souls useful to the living (by creating undead servants) to blissful ignorance of their existence because some see them as soulless, mindless containers of rotten flesh.

 

None of which needs to be represented in any way in a priest character's skill set.

 

Depends on how you look at it, could you be able to implement it not only to the Priest, but various other Class combinations. A Cipher could perhaps have a "tree" or whatever, making it possible to "manipulate" dead or sleeping souls from their deep chambers. A Chanter calling on elder ancient lost souls?

 

I might be deviating the thread a little bit, but how does different types of classes act towards different types of enemies? Does the Orlan prefer to fight up close like the Aumaua do? Can the Orlan handle themselves against a Giant type creature like the Aumaua can? Will a Fighter face a Dragon just like a Wizard faces it?

Edited December 19, 2012 by Osvir

[Sacred_Path]

Depends on how you look at it, could you be able to implement it not only to the Priest, but various other Class combinations. A Cipher could perhaps have a "tree" or whatever, making it possible to "manipulate" dead or sleeping souls from their deep chambers. A Chanter calling on elder ancient lost souls?

 

If undead are a huge deal in P:E, why not. Make every character a vampire hunter in one way or another. But if they're just one type of creature in the world...

 

They could have built the world around it as a theme. Like a cross of D&D Ravenloft and Baroque themes of the Thirty Years War. Undead working the fields as farmhands, undead regiments roaming the land as parts of armies, people getting killed off because they're more useful as disease-proof, untiring soldiers.

But the world of P:E seems pretty colorful, so personally I hope undead aren't omnipresent.

[Osvir]

I am just implying that certain "types" of creatures being encountered differently for each class/race combination. Not just Undead, but Giants, Humanoid, Four-Legged Wild Animal, Flying, Subterranean, Demonic, Rat-ic etc. etc.

 

An Orlan Rogue getting a penalty by fighting a mini-Ogre in some ways, but also has a few advantages. An Aumaua instead gets the advantage of battle intimidation or something and can stand toe-to-toe with a mini-Ogre but gets some sort of disadvantage towards fighting it too. Following that ideal not only the Priest could have an innate ability to encounter the "Undead", but the Chanter could also have a certain type of way to deal with the "Undead".

 

Do the Classes in themselves (or Weapon Specialization) following some sort of natural martial code which is better against other specifical types of monsters? Is the Mace in itself a preferred weapon for a Priest? And does the Priest have its own "preferred fighting style" which is practiced and taught by Priests? Kind of how Tai-Chi is different from Jeet Kune Do, and practical in different situations and different Disciplines (Does the Priest follow some sort of Martial Discipline tied to its Class?). In that sense, isn't "Crushing" usually the best weapon against Undead? Likewise, blasting with a Shotgun (Shotgun in itself really nails it) usually helps in dealing with the undead. Could the fire animation for the Priest (with a gun) be that of a "Cross" or something similar?

 

Maybe just a "on hit" animation differing per class and weapons~?

Edited December 19, 2012 by Osvir

[Alexjh]

I think the reason that undead are particularly singled out for Clerics does have some worthwhile reasoning behind it but setting wise and gameplay wise. Which isn't to say I think it is necessary, but more that I see why they've done it in the past. The thing about undead in D&D is that they tend to be some of the tougher standard enemies you are likely to face in a campaign - particularly because their undeadiness entirely negates rogues, often resists various schools of magic and damage reduction and immunity to criticals even makes them proportionally tougher for the "smashy" classes than an equivical levelled orc or whatever. As clerics don't really specialise with in offensive combat on an average basis, matching up a fairly broad tough type of enemies with a thematically matching class is a nice mix.

 

However, I can see why not everyone would want that, so as a compromise, perhaps if it became a class power for specific churches. If you had a selection churches and each gained a special power, one could have turn undead, one a version of lay on hands, one that had some sort of fancy auras, one that just made them far better in combat etc you'd end up with a system where choosing which religion your protagonist belonged to was far more important in what your character could do.

[rjshae]

Perhaps the game could allow priests of every deity to have some impact on the undead via a spell, but the exact effect varies based upon the deity? For example:

1. The classic turn undead effect causes some of the undead to flee the vicinity.
   
2. Unbind undead -- this weakens the death magic that ties the undead to this plane, effectively reducing their "Health" rating for a time.
   
3. Rebuke undead -- the effected undead suffer a penalty to attack and damage.
   
4. Disrupt undead -- some of the undead become confused and attack their own kind.
   
5. Bind undead -- one or more of the undead become allies.
   

Thus, a priest of a deity of life may be able to unbind undead through the use of positive energy. A priest of love and home could rebuke an undead, while an 'evil' priest could bind undead.

[Umberlin]

Do Priests in this setting even care about Necromancy? Even if some Priests do care, is that all Priests, or just some Priests? Does Necromancy have the same implications as other settings? Are the undead even seen in the same way? Are they hostile or viewed in a hostile/feared manner? Lots of . . . questions.

[rjshae]

^^^^

I could imagine some cultures where necromancy is just thought of as the norm, although perhaps it is strictly limited to dead slaves or prisoners. In that case, the local priesthoods may be tolerant of it, or else the deities strictly opposed to it aren't worshiped there. Still, there may be restless dead that are not the result of necromancy, and for which a priest may be better suited to deal with.

[AGX-17]

After the latest cool update (#36), I began to wonder what the role of priests should be with regard to undead. It's traditional, and significant, for clerics in D&D to have a turn undead capability (or rebuke undead with 3e). But is that necessarily relevant for the PE setting? Should priests be required to cast spells to repel or command undead? Or should that ability be restricted to wizards? Perhaps the ability to manipulate the undead should be limited to priests of certain deities? Maybe a turn undead-like ability should be weakened somewhat, starting with a "hinder undead"-like ability that just makes the walking dead more hesitant to attack (for an attack/damage penalty)?

 

What do you think?

 

Why would they "command undead"? Priests aren't necromancers, they're the opposite. They're the antithesis of necromancers. Priests should be consecrating the defiled corpses perverted by necromancy, or attempting to save the souls enslaved by necromancers if that's how necromancy works in a given context.

 

 

Do Priests in this setting even care about Necromancy? Even if some Priests do care, is that all Priests, or just some Priests? Does Necromancy have the same implications as other settings? Are the undead even seen in the same way? Are they hostile or viewed in a hostile/feared manner? Lots of . . . questions.

 

It doesn't seem to be apparent that they're going to have an individualized Priest class for every race, culture and religion. If there's a religion where necromancers are the priests and the community is full of rotting loved ones shambling around infusing the town with a rank malodor for the comfort of their survivors, that's probably not going to be represented by the Priest class.

Edited December 20, 2012 by AGX-17

[Umberlin]

^^^^

I could imagine some cultures where necromancy is just thought of as the norm, although perhaps it is strictly limited to dead slaves or prisoners. In that case, the local priesthoods may be tolerant of it, or else the deities strictly opposed to it aren't worshiped there. Still, there may be restless dead that are not the result of necromancy, and for which a priest may be better suited to deal with.

 

Well, my point is there are a bunch of impossible questions to answer . . . at this point.

 

We don't know what it means, fully, to be a Priest in this setting - yet. We don't know what it means, fully, to be undead, in this setting - yet (from what little we have I do grasp that we have 'types' and 'extremes' of Undeath. We know tiny bits and pieces about Necromancy, but even that isn't wholly the norm:

 

refers to any attempt to do either, whether that involves speaking with the soul of a dead mortal, attempting to tap into the unconscious past lives of a living soul, or to bind soul energy or a complete soul inside of a dead body.

 

There are some things here that come off more along the lines of what we've seen from Shaman, Witch Doctor and, yes, even Priests in some other setting. We have some aspects, but not the full story of what Necromancy means in the context of this setting. There's even suggestion that Necromancers are hunted, but not 'necessarily' for reasons of Necromancers being evil, or the undead for that matter.

 

We don't know fully how P:E's concept of the soul ties into such things yet. We have a picture of 'some' being curious, and in legitimate ways, about what lies beyond with others being opposed to learning about it. I liked that it was outlined as learning, not 'just' using, because it makes the notes on hunting down Necromancers about 'knowledge' they might grasp. Rather than simply that a Necromancer is doing something evil and raising evil undead to do evil things. I even note that the 'cult' isn't the Necromancers, but people after Necromancers. Typically 'cult' is used as a negative, by modern standards anyways, so I'm curious if the cult is more the negative element than the various aspects noted as 'Necromantic' . . . I say that because some of those noted elements seem pretty harlmess and standard.

 

Fear is noted, but it's noted as coming from those with extremist methods more than from the Necromaners.

 

Take that speaking to the dead example Obsidian provided in the context of a Necromancer letting a living mortal talk to a dead relative, and ask how evil that sounds compared to killing people, Necromancers, for what they might learn beyond mortal limits.

 

I've seen games where the Undead were holy, returned for a righteous cause. I've seen games where Necromancers were pretty much just Priests. I've seen settings, even IE games, where the equivalent archetype to Priest could control or summon the Undead, if they so chose, and dable in negative energies. I've seen so many variations, that, with what little we know, I simply will not presume to know what is to come until it's told.

 

It's all very interesting, but I think we need more information before we can talk about turn undead styled abilities. They may well be a moot line of thinking. Control, or lack of control could be a divine point, as it was with some Clerics in D&D, where they undead are concerned . . . but it may be a wholly separate thing in this setting. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Frisk]

Are there any undead in PE at all? Why shoulc they be, to start with - do they fit into the world?

[rjshae]

Are there any undead in PE at all? Why shoulc they be, to start with - do they fit into the world?

My understanding is that the Endless Paths is supposed to be an undead dungeon.

[Alexjh]

I would say this on the subject of undead - of any group of monsters they are probably the most likely to appear in any individual game or setting. Which isn't to say they should be in every setting, but given the fact that death in a universal constant it means that the undead are found in many world mythologies and in many forms. As the thing about them being a representation fear of death / oblivion and are essentially an animate version of a thing found plentifully in fantasy and real life (dead bodies) they manage to be far more numerous even than other things which turn up across the mythologies like dragons, giants and lycanthrope-esque things.

[Bill Gates' Son]

After the latest cool update (#36), I began to wonder what the role of priests should be with regard to undead. It's traditional, and significant, for clerics in D&D to have a turn undead capability (or rebuke undead with 3e). But is that necessarily relevant for the PE setting? Should priests be required to cast spells to repel or command undead? Or should that ability be restricted to wizards? Perhaps the ability to manipulate the undead should be limited to priests of certain deities? Maybe a turn undead-like ability should be weakened somewhat, starting with a "hinder undead"-like ability that just makes the walking dead more hesitant to attack (for an attack/damage penalty)?

 

What do you think?

 

Why would they "command undead"? Priests aren't necromancers, they're the opposite. They're the antithesis of necromancers. Priests should be consecrating the defiled corpses perverted by necromancy, or attempting to save the souls enslaved by necromancers if that's how necromancy works in a given context.

 

I don't know much about priest in PE, but I'm pretty sure clerics had the ability to control and create the undead in D&D. Some evil clerics were basically divine necromancers depending on their skills and domains that they picked. I'm assuming their going to based Priest from this game off the clerics from D&D 3 and 4.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Bill Gates' Son

[Somna]

After the latest cool update (#36), I began to wonder what the role of priests should be with regard to undead. It's traditional, and significant, for clerics in D&D to have a turn undead capability (or rebuke undead with 3e). But is that necessarily relevant for the PE setting? Should priests be required to cast spells to repel or command undead? Or should that ability be restricted to wizards? Perhaps the ability to manipulate the undead should be limited to priests of certain deities? Maybe a turn undead-like ability should be weakened somewhat, starting with a "hinder undead"-like ability that just makes the walking dead more hesitant to attack (for an attack/damage penalty)?

 

What do you think?

 

Why would they "command undead"? Priests aren't necromancers, they're the opposite. They're the antithesis of necromancers. Priests should be consecrating the defiled corpses perverted by necromancy, or attempting to save the souls enslaved by necromancers if that's how necromancy works in a given context.

 

I don't know much about priest in PE, but I'm pretty sure clerics had the ability to control and create the undead in D&D. Some evil clerics were basically divine necromancers depending on their skills and domains that they picked. I'm assuming their going to based Priest from this game off the clerics from D&D 3 and 4.

 

They're already said that Priests would be more like a D&D Paladin.

[rjshae]

^^^^

D&D Paladin also had turn undead, IIRC. For me the ability to sway undead seems logical because of the priest's association with funeral rites. It's an important and distinctive element of the priest class in D&D that elevates them past being a simple healer.

[Bill Gates' Son]

After the latest cool update (#36), I began to wonder what the role of priests should be with regard to undead. It's traditional, and significant, for clerics in D&D to have a turn undead capability (or rebuke undead with 3e). But is that necessarily relevant for the PE setting? Should priests be required to cast spells to repel or command undead? Or should that ability be restricted to wizards? Perhaps the ability to manipulate the undead should be limited to priests of certain deities? Maybe a turn undead-like ability should be weakened somewhat, starting with a "hinder undead"-like ability that just makes the walking dead more hesitant to attack (for an attack/damage penalty)?

 

What do you think?

 

Why would they "command undead"? Priests aren't necromancers, they're the opposite. They're the antithesis of necromancers. Priests should be consecrating the defiled corpses perverted by necromancy, or attempting to save the souls enslaved by necromancers if that's how necromancy works in a given context.

 

I don't know much about priest in PE, but I'm pretty sure clerics had the ability to control and create the undead in D&D. Some evil clerics were basically divine necromancers depending on their skills and domains that they picked. I'm assuming their going to based Priest from this game off the clerics from D&D 3 and 4.

 

They're already said that Priests would be more like a D&D Paladin.

 

Weren't D&D paladins clerics with less spells anyway? That's basically what I remember.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Bill Gates' Son

[Somna]

After the latest cool update (#36), I began to wonder what the role of priests should be with regard to undead. It's traditional, and significant, for clerics in D&D to have a turn undead capability (or rebuke undead with 3e). But is that necessarily relevant for the PE setting? Should priests be required to cast spells to repel or command undead? Or should that ability be restricted to wizards? Perhaps the ability to manipulate the undead should be limited to priests of certain deities? Maybe a turn undead-like ability should be weakened somewhat, starting with a "hinder undead"-like ability that just makes the walking dead more hesitant to attack (for an attack/damage penalty)?

 

What do you think?

 

Why would they "command undead"? Priests aren't necromancers, they're the opposite. They're the antithesis of necromancers. Priests should be consecrating the defiled corpses perverted by necromancy, or attempting to save the souls enslaved by necromancers if that's how necromancy works in a given context.

 

I don't know much about priest in PE, but I'm pretty sure clerics had the ability to control and create the undead in D&D. Some evil clerics were basically divine necromancers depending on their skills and domains that they picked. I'm assuming their going to based Priest from this game off the clerics from D&D 3 and 4.

 

They're already said that Priests would be more like a D&D Paladin.

 

Weren't D&D paladins clerics with less spells anyway? That's basically what I remember.

 

Only if all you focused on were spells and spells only, and even then it's not correct.

 

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm

 

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

 

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm