Guild Wars 2

Could a necromancer, through fear, begin to lose authority over their minions and begin to become a slave to the minions he summons?

Why would a person train to be a necromancer if he/she is afraid of their own minions? x_X

Besides the minions aren’t intelligent, they are mere flesh puppets, held together by magic. If the necromancer looses control over them, they go on a rampage, but they don’t enslave anyone.

Losing controle and rampaging means they would be a bit more than flesh puppets. Though, I agree, the training a necromancer would go through should eliminate any fear of their own creation since they know how it works, how to controle it and how to take back the power that gives it life.

Originally in Guild Wars 1, when a Necromancer with minion dies the minions just start attacking whatever is closest be they friend or foe of the Necromancer who summons them. There’s even a quest on Shing Jea Island where you take out necro minions that are running rampant without their master’s leash.

This does not suggest they have free will though by any stretch. It means they’re basically programmed with basic abilities. Movement and attack. The Necromancer normally controls both of these by tethering them to him, but without the Necromancer they just blindly start attacking anything that breathes.

In GW2 the minions don’t seem to have this problem. For whatever reasons, this side-effect of minion summoning has been removed over the 250 years of advancement in Tyria.

EDIT: If you’re going for RPing a Twitchy/Scared to poop necromancer, the only thing that could come to mind is maybe one who’s dabbling with forbidden magic (ie zombies and the raising of the dead through more than just macabre meat puppetry). Though without context to the question this is really just going out on a limb.

The standard minions you summon through player skills are mindless, just animated flesh. I suppose a necromancer can summon things like fleshreavers and certain underworld creatures that are fairly intelligent. Also, I guess if you summoned a shade, it may work.

Dustfinger.9510:

Losing controle and rampaging means they would be a bit more than flesh puppets.

Not really – minions are, by effect, mindless killing machines. They’re created by the necromancer’s own energy, tethered merely by magic, and once the necromancer is no longer there to control them (e.g., they die), they go killing anything they see.

Mind you, this is in GW1. In GW2, minions continue to fight only your enemies in GW2, so maybe this flaw was overcome in the 250 years.

Dustfinger.9510:

Though, I agree, the training a necromancer would go through should eliminate any fear of their own creation since they know how it works, how to controle it and how to take back the power that gives it life.

Typically, yes. And in GW1, it shows those who cannot control their creations are, normally, killed (rather than enslaved). But what if the necromancer went through a traumatic experience? Say, s/he was nearly killed by a swarm of risen, and/or lost his/her best friend to them? That may change things – shake up the necromancer to the point where they lose control of the minions they make, through psychological trauma.

So it’s a possibility – a necromancer who has natural talent in necromancy thus easily able to control minions can, through psychological dillusion, make it so that he or she is “enslaved” to the minions. This wouldn’t be actuality, but rather due to an insecurity on the necromancer’s psyche which allows it.

The enslavement to minions would be purely imaginative (they couldn’t actually control the necromancer, but the necromancer would believe they can), but it’s still very real to the necromancer.

It’s very little to the concept of an abusive imaginary friend.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Not really – minions are, by effect, mindless killing machines. They’re created by the necromancer’s own energy, tethered merely by magic, and once the necromancer is no longer there to control them (e.g., they die), they go killing anything they see.

which makes them a little more than puppets becasue puppets need their strings pulled where as mindless killing machines are autonomous. At best, they are merely golems but I like to think they would be more like highly trained, killer dogs that only ansewr to the owner. Except the owner can pull the life force from the dog at any time. ….and the dogs are under magical controle :P

Mind you, this is in GW1. In GW2, minions continue to fight only your enemies in GW2, so maybe this flaw was overcome in the 250 years.

This implies a more direct relationship between the will of the necromancer and the “will/goal” of the creation. But any goal the creation has after the death of the necromancer points to it being more than just a puppet. Even the classic idea of a mindless/soul-less golem fulfilling it’s duty centuries after it’s creators death is still more than a puppet.

Typically, yes. And in GW1, it shows those who cannot control their creations are, normally, killed (rather than enslaved). But what if the necromancer went through a traumatic experience? Say, s/he was nearly killed by a swarm of risen, and/or lost his/her best friend to them? That may change things – shake up the necromancer to the point where they lose control of the minions they make, through psychological trauma.

So it’s a possibility – a necromancer who has natural talent in necromancy thus easily able to control minions can, through psychological dillusion, make it so that he or she is “enslaved” to the minions. This wouldn’t be actuality, but rather due to an insecurity on the necromancer’s psyche which allows it.

The enslavement to minions would be purely imaginative (they couldn’t actually control the necromancer, but the necromancer would believe they can), but it’s still very real to the necromancer.

It’s very little to the concept of an abusive imaginary friend.

An abusive imaginary friend is an extreme event on the same level as a golemancer creating an automoton with a remote off-switch and the golemancer believing that if he pushed it it wouldn’t work so he just refuses to push it. possible but then so is just about anything when combined with extreme delusion and irrational fears. In wich case they don’t actually lose controle, they just think they have. And they are really letting an autonomous creation run it’s course.

edit: Konig brings a great idea. The necro wouldn’t actually be enslaved but if he is extremely delusional, his subconscious may be controling one or more golems that allow him to think it’s in controle. Maybe there is one lump of meat and bones, sitting in a corner that the necromancer thinks is talking to him. But it is actually a voice that comes from his own demented mind. any movement of the meat against the necro is actually controlled unkowingly by the necro but with extreme psychosis, it is possible as konig said.

You’re thinking puppets animated by magic would act the same as puppets animated by standard non-magical strings.

In which case, they don’t (necessarily) act the same. It varies by the type and purpose of the magic used, and in this case they don’t act the same.

Dustfinger.9510:

This implies a more direct relationship between the will of the necromancer and the “will/goal” of the creation. But any goal the creation has after the death of the necromancer points to it being more than just a puppet. Even the classic idea of a mindless/soul-less golem fulfilling it’s duty centuries after it’s creators death is still more than a puppet.

Except that it doesn’t have a goal. A goal implies independent thought – it would merely be acting on the last will of the necromancer and/or the purpose of its creation: to kill enemies. This is the necromancer’s “programming” so to speak into the minion. But without the necromancer to differentiate what’s ally and what’s foe, the minion can’t tell.

And btw, there are more puppets are than just marionettes.

Dustfinger.9510:

An abusive imaginary friend is an extreme event on the same level as a golemancer creating an automoton with a remote off-switch and the golemancer believing that if he pushed it it wouldn’t work so he just refuses to push it. […] In wich case they don’t actually lose controle, they just think they have. And they are really letting an autonomous creation run it’s course.

Yes, that situation would be comparitive, though that wasn’t meant as an example of the necromancer losing control.

I was bringing two scenarios into play: one where the necromancer literally loses control, and the other where the necromancer just thinks he or she lost control.

And I wouldn’t say it’s that extreme. Psychological issues are probably more common than not in a world like Tyria where there are practically threats around every corner and tree. It’s a surprise so many people live, tbh, especially not paranoid like hell.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

You’re thinking puppets animated by magic would act the same as puppets animated by standard non-magical strings.

In which case, they don’t (necessarily) act the same. It varies by the type and purpose of the magic used, and in this case they don’t act the same.

if there is no standardized definition, they can also be called birds, bricks and ice cubes. As long as I say these are magic birds bricks and icecubes that don’t follow suit with nonmagic ones. The term puppet is pretty clear.

Except that it doesn’t have a goal. A goal implies independent thought – it would merely be acting on the last will of the necromancer and/or the purpose of its creation: to kill enemies. This is the necromancer’s “programming” so to speak into the minion. But without the necromancer to differentiate what’s ally and what’s foe, the minion can’t tell.

A goal in no way implies a need for independant thought. Computer programs have goals. the same goals they were designed for.

And btw, there are more puppets are than just marionettes.

Yet they tend to require direct manipulation for all action. That’s what a puppet is. It’s what distinguishes them from classic golems and other autamotauns. Which is what you are describing.

Yes, that situation would be comparitive, though that wasn’t meant as an example of the necromancer losing control.

I was bringing two scenarios into play: one where the necromancer literally loses control, and the other where the necromancer just thinks he or she lost control.

And I wouldn’t say it’s that extreme. Psychological issues are probably more common than not in a world like Tyria where there are practically threats around every corner and tree. It’s a surprise so many people live, tbh, especially not paranoid like hell.

Psychological issues are common. that degree of psychosis IS extreme. When psychological issues start being the norm, they stop being psychological issues since psychological issues are culturally dependant.

Now you’re just being silly. Yes, definition for puppet is pretty clear:

pup·pet
noun
1.
an artificial figure representing a human being or an animal, manipulated by the hand, rods, wires, etc., as on a miniature stage. Compare hand puppet, marionette.
2.
a person, group, government, etc., whose actions are prompted and controlled by another or others.
3.
a small doll.
4.
Machinery , poppethead.

None of which state a requirement of active control from the user or the puppet becomes 100% inactive.

And hey, one can argue a golem is a puppet, based on definitions 1 and 2. Artificial figure being manipulated by wires and gears; a machine.

Dustfinger.9510:

Yet they tend to require direct manipulation for all action. That’s what a puppet is. It’s what distinguishes them from classic golems and other autamotauns. Which is what you are describing.

The difference between a minion and an automaton is that automatons simply need to push an on button once created. Minions cannot be active without the necromancer proactively willing it.

It’s just that they don’t go limp once the necromancer stops paying attention.

At best, a minion would be an inbetween of a puppet and a automaton.

Of course, not all minions are like this. Some do require direct control – see Ghosts of Ascalon and the two minions Killeen creates. She proactively manages the minion’s movements completely. And similarly, there do seem to be minions which function more like a golem – like the minion created via the Golem’s Eye.

Not all minions seem to be created equal, however. Two good examples can be found in Kessex Hills near Blackroot Cut. First, we have the undead wurms/fiends created by Draithor, the centaur necromancer. They seem to be able to react to and attack enemies even when Draithor is not around (when he’s out attacking Black Lion merchants on the road, for example), suggesting that minions do not always need their controlling necromancer to be present.

Secondly, I MIGHT be misremembering, but when Aria Venom (the necromancer who lives in Black Haven nearby) animates several Flesh Golems to help you in your fight against Draithor, the Flesh Golems actually speak. It’s just canned lines of dialogue like “I serve the Mistress” or something similar, but it might indicate that these Flesh Golems possess some level of intelligence.

Throwing out a guess, it may depend on the amount of power invested into the minion that determines what level of autonomy they have. In the example from GoA, with Killeen’s minions, she just plans to use them as trap fodder. So there would be no reason to invest much energy into raising them, and so they’re more like puppets she controls directly.

On the other hand, undead that a necromancer is going to use as a sentry can be given some basic instructions – “Attack anything except me that approaches”, that sort of thing. And, of course, Zhaitan had power to spare when he was consuming all that energy from Orr, so the Risen were of an overall higher quality, so to speak, than the average undead.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Now you’re just being silly. Yes, definition for puppet is pretty clear:

pup·pet
noun
1.
an artificial figure representing a human being or an animal, manipulated by the hand, rods, wires, etc., as on a miniature stage. Compare hand puppet, marionette.
2.
a person, group, government, etc., whose actions are prompted and controlled by another or others.
3.
a small doll.
4.
Machinery , poppethead.

None of which state a requirement of active control from the user or the puppet becomes 100% inactive.

And hey, one can argue a golem is a puppet, based on definitions 1 and 2. Artificial figure being manipulated by wires and gears; a machine.

gears? definition 1 is refering to actual puppets that have rods to manipulate them by hand. like muppets and silk screen theatre puppets. “Compare handpuppet and marionette.” Most of us know what a puppet is. it really shouldn’t need to be specifically stated that they require an operator becasue the examples both need operators. But let’s use your illogic. You’ve now eliminated that just becasue something is puppet, that it can’t have a will of it’s own since “None of which state a requirement of no individual will beyond the user of the puppet”. See how rediculous that is?

The difference between a minion and an automaton is that automatons simply need to push an on button once created. Minions cannot be active without the necromancer proactively willing it.

wait for it….

It’s just that they don’t go limp once the necromancer stops paying attention.

So when the necromancer dies……

At best, a minion would be an inbetween of a puppet and a automaton.

which means I was correct when I stated that they are a bit more than a puppet. But how are they diffrent from an automoton if they continue to act after the death of the necromancer who is activly willing it?