Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

http://bgtscc.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2152
http://bgtscc.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=78

Those two threads should give you the lore details you were looking for.

For what it's worth, I'm a relatively new player to the UD (been down there a few weeks) and my experiences are apparently different than yours. I've met -maybe- one follower of Elistraee. And this is just an IC suspicion. I've run across more followers of Lloth than anything else, which I've found interesting considering the secular nature of Sshamath.

As for non-drow roleplaying independence, that's normal in Sshamath, according to the lore. Non-drow aren't instantly slaves, they're just second class citizens. African americans in the U.S. 1960s is perhaps an appropriate analogy.

As for lack of charnag/conclave representation, I suppose I agree. I've met more drow that aren't affiliated with the conclave than are. But keep in mind, the PC population need not necessarily represent the NPC population. Just because you haven't run across several conclave-associated PCs, doesn't mean they don't still rule the city.

I can't really comment on DM activity. I've only had one DM interaction (which was on the surface), but considering how large the player base is, that seems normal. That said, I typically notice at least one, if not more, DMs logged on in the UD when I'm on.

Im not going to go into the good drow thing. that has been brought up before.

Lolths favored weapon is a dagger. Not a good fighting weapon, except for the rogue types.

Some people just ignore NPC or that should be more of them around, or just dont think of it (i guess alot of us dont think of it all the time)

So, I've actually got a question to pose to the loremasters here on BG.

First, I'd like to indicate the following facts - please correct me if I'm wrong, this is what I recall from the PnP I co-DMed before based off the sourcebooks (which might be outdated?):

1. In Thay, it is punishable by death for any non-Red Wizard to wear a red robe.
2. Since death is the punishment, and Thayans can be fickle most would rather not put themselves at risk, and thus avoid even wearing a shred of red on them.
3. Kossuth is the largest faith in Thay, worshiped even by some Red Wizards.
4. Kossuthians wear red, crimson, and to an extent, yellow, as their main colors of faith.

I've been searching high and low, but I've been unable to come to a definitive answer for what colors the Kossuthian priesthood wears in Thay, or in a Thayan enclave. Would it be right to assume that Kossuthians still wear their colors, but simply not a robe - e.g. a tunic, or red armor, et cetera? I read that the punishment by death is quite specifically, "red robes", but maybe someone who remembers this stuff better can help me out here.

Thanks!

#1 Red wizards and the clergy of Kossuth are allowed to wear red robes - also within Thayan borders. Outside Thay, Thayan law does not apply, save for in the enclaves, so in theory, capital punishment is not executed outside of Thay or the enclaves (though Thayans and their indoctrination will probably take up vigilante methods in foreign countries anyways to promote/honor the Thayan ways).

#2 Correct - at least not openly within Thayan borders.

#3 Depends what period in time we are talking about. After the Salamander Wars, yes, but I am not certain how it is previous to that. It is definately safe to assume that it is one of the biggest faiths, also worshipped by Red Wizards (as Kossuth is one of the primordial deities and thus worhy of worship, even by the intellectual elite of academics)

#4 Yes - in general (though there are a great number of exceptions depending on whether the follower is doing e.g. sermons, rituals, fighting, trading etc.)

* Info taken from the Faith and Avatars sourcebook and the one Wiki has copied from (forgot its name).

Hope is was helpul.

I was trying to write a song about Aglarond and thought this the perfect opportunity to write a bit about the Simbul, when a small dilemma came up. The Wikia says that the Simbul was the ruler until 1425 DR, but it doesn't say when she took up rulership of the land.

I know she was born in 762 DR, but other than that I can't find a date for when she 'inherited' the throne from Ilione.

We're around 1346 DR now, is it safe to assume she's still the terrifying (to the Reds at the very least =P) Queen of Aglarond?

She should be, yes. Shortly she'll begin dating Elminster, in fact. (He gets around.)

Can someone fill me in on why Necromancy is considered so bad. How resserecting people isn't counted as Necromancy. Are there any groups/places/important people who beleive Necromancy isn't necaisarily evil. Are there any Necromancers who arn't evil.

Thankyou too anyone who can answer.

Candide wrote:Can someone fill me in on why Necromancy is considered so bad. How resserecting people isn't counted as Necromancy. Are there any groups/places/important people who beleive Necromancy isn't necaisarily evil. Are there any Necromancers who arn't evil.

Thankyou too anyone who can answer.

Necromancy is animating a corpse to use for personal goals, generally the pursuit of power. It violates "natural" order of things and is quite disrespectful of the fallen, stops a natural decay and extends the remains for selfish uses.

Resurrection is returning life and soul to the body of the deceased, giving them another chance....big difference. =P

Larzs wrote:

Candide wrote:Can someone fill me in on why Necromancy is considered so bad. How resserecting people isn't counted as Necromancy. Are there any groups/places/important people who beleive Necromancy isn't necaisarily evil. Are there any Necromancers who arn't evil.

Thankyou too anyone who can answer.

Necromancy is animating a corpse to use for personal goals, generally the pursuit of power. It violates "natural" order of things and is quite disrespectful of the fallen, stops a natural decay and extends the remains for selfish uses.

Resurrection is returning life and soul to the body of the deceased, giving them another chance....big difference. =P

Not all necromancy is bad, just the spells with Evil in the descriptor. Because the game rules say there evil, there evil (if you want to look at it from a rule book view) my view is that evil spells would have some kind of magically corruptible power to them, represented by an aliment shift, in a normal PnP game. Dms here cant give out aliment points every time someone uses an evil spell but its still safe to assume its there

BlueHero45 wrote:

Larzs wrote:

Candide wrote:Can someone fill me in on why Necromancy is considered so bad. How resserecting people isn't counted as Necromancy. Are there any groups/places/important people who beleive Necromancy isn't necaisarily evil. Are there any Necromancers who arn't evil.

Thankyou too anyone who can answer.

Necromancy is animating a corpse to use for personal goals, generally the pursuit of power. It violates "natural" order of things and is quite disrespectful of the fallen, stops a natural decay and extends the remains for selfish uses.

Resurrection is returning life and soul to the body of the deceased, giving them another chance....big difference. =P

Not all necromancy is bad, just the spells with Evil in the descriptor. Because the game rules say there evil, there evil (if you want to look at it from a rule book view) my view is that evil spells would have some kind of magically corruptible power to them, represented by an aliment shift, in a normal PnP game. Dms here cant give out aliment points every time someone uses an evil spell but its still safe to assume its there

Well yeah...but mostly Necromancy is in some shape or form bring dead back to be used, just a hallow husk to mindlessly follow orders.

Well yeah...but mostly Necromancy is in some shape or form bring dead back to be used, just a hallow husk to mindlessly follow orders.

Alot of Necromancy is attack and death spells, as well as undead defense and killing spells. Its just the most well known for its Undead spells.

In fact most of the time the word Necromancer is used as a slur, for someone who uses undead, instead of its real meaning as someone who focus in the school of Necromancy. There can be good undead slaying necromancers, they just wont use the evil stuff.

Interesting. So what if say a neutral or good character started using Necromancy to fight Evil creatures and people. In the rule ook that makes them evil but from a RP point of view does it really make them evil?

we already have a long topic where people have discussed this

Mute83, gentleman and philosopher.

TL;DR version:

It's not necromancy that makes you evil, it's spells with the [Evil] descriptor. The most obvious and well-known of those are necromancy, such as animating the dead. You can safely assume that when someone says "no necromancy" or "he's a necromancer" they're referring to evil rather than, say, Resurrection.