Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kedami 09-24-07, 03:04 PM	I just wanted to get this down and see what people though. Undead Creation 1) Undead are not automatically evil. 2) Undead created through spells are the alignment of their creator. 3) Undead creating spells do not have the [Evil] descriptor. Undead and Religion 1) Clerics no longer have Turn/Rebuke Dead. Neither do advanced Paladins. 2) Undead are now researched under Knowledge (Arcana). 3) Any entries that state that holy symbols effect the undead are ignored. Turn Undead is still available however.Turn/Destroy Undead (General): Prerequisits: Wisdom 15 Benefit: Gain the ability to Turn Undead Rebuke/Control Undead (General): Prerequisits: Wisdom 15 Benefit: Gain ability to Rebuke UndeadI'd like to hear what people think. Obviously any undead that needs to feed may tend towards evil (unless it chooses to only feed on evil people). (I wasn't sure where to put this: Here, the Monsters board or the Campaign Settings board.)
Rhialto 09-24-07, 03:13 PM	The non-aligned undead creation works in that it is internally consistent, except for one issue. If all living creatures are born of a spark of positive energy and all undead are born of a spark of negative energy, then all undead, by the very nature of their physical composition, must be harmful to all living creatures. Given this is something that no undead could change, no matter how well-intentioned, and that any living creature must be aware of, I'm not sure how it could not be an evil act for a living creature to create undead. Although i can see how it would not necessarily be evil (or good) for an undead creature to create undead.
Kedami 09-24-07, 03:16 PM	I can see your point. Perhaps I could remove that part, but I still want to have those energys unaligned.
RobbyPants 09-24-07, 03:39 PM	I'd suggest making the prereq on your Turn/Rebuke feats Wis 15 (or 13 if you want it that low), as it seems most feats have an odd number for the prereq. The reason (I'm guessing) for this is because your ability mods increase on even numbers, so they wanted a reason to have an odd numbered score. Also, if undead are no longer evil, then I'm assuning Holy weapons no longer have an effect on them? I'm assuming you could still use an Undead Bane weapon to it's usual effect though.
Kedami 09-24-07, 03:47 PM	I changed the Wisdom to 15 as advised. I actually couldn't decide between the 13 or the 15, so I placed it in the middle... Meh. Anyway, Holy weapons wouldn't automatically deal their damage to undead (unless the creator was evil or it was intelligent and chose to be evil).
Tequila_Sunrise 09-24-07, 04:14 PM	I just wanted to get this down and see what people though. Have you been reading the 'Why are Undead Evil' thread? ;) As much as I like undead to be evil, it's your game and you get to make the decisions. As long as your players know beforehand, there shouldn't be any problem with these rules.
Kedami 09-24-07, 04:16 PM	I probably should read that thread, I just haven't yet. I've asked about this with a couple of players ( one will be playing a Ghoul in an upcoming campaign) and they seem ok with it.
Tequila_Sunrise 09-24-07, 08:47 PM	I probably should read that thread, I just haven't yet. It's really not worth your time. Here's a summary: OP: Why are undead generally evil? Undevil Team: Undead being evil is a standard fantasy theme. Goodeath Team: But that's stupid! There's nothing in the rules to indicate that they're evil except for the "always evil" label. Undevil Team: Of course there's nothing in the rules to explain why undead are evil, that's the DM's job. If a DM doesn't like undead always being evil, he/she is free to house rule it. Goodeath Team: That's not good enough! There's no logical explanation for undead to be evil by default! DMs should not have to house rule undead for them to be non-evil! Down with evil undeath! *rabble rabble rabble* And so on and so forth... Okay, so I'm a bit biased, but that is the gyst of the thread and about a hundred past threads on the same topic. There are extreme arguments on both sides that I didn't mention. For example, there are a couple people who try to use rules-legalese to argue that undead are not, by RAW, evil :rolleyes:. The rest of us enjoy ramming their unyielding skulls into the Wall of Common Sense.
Talisman 09-24-07, 10:13 PM	The rest of us enjoy ramming their unyielding skulls into the Wall of Common Sense. The ol' Wall of Common Sense has taken a beating. Kedami, a question: what, if anything, do clerics get in place of turn undead? Aside from that, your houserules look fine. And I disagree with Rhialto's assertion that just because living creatures = positive and undead creatures = negative, then creating undead (tampering with negative energy) = evil. Two things to keep in mind here: (1) Negative energy may be anathema to life, but so are lots of things. So is fire. So is extreme cold. So is a pointy bit of metal in the eye. That doesn't make any of them inherently evil. (2) At the point when an undead is being created, there is no spark of positive energy to snuff out, because the undead-to-be is...dead. Positive energy = living creature. No positive energy = corpse. Now, murdering someone and raising them as a vampire is probably not good, but in that case it's the murder part that's evil, not necessarily the undead-ification. making someone undead against their will (is that possible?) might also be evil, but only because it's enslaving them in a rathe macabre fashion...no different than dominate person, in your world.
Rhialto 09-25-07, 03:25 AM	My assertion isn't based on the idea of playing with antithetical (to you) energy = evil, but on the idea of creating something independant and self-aware whose simple physical existence is harmful to you and your kin by way of its very biological (necrological?) composition is evil. Now sure, fire, extreme cold, pointy sticks, acid, and so on, are also harmful to life, but they aren't intrinsically so. They can be harmful or helpful, depending on context. But negative energy can only ever be harmful to life; it has no redeeming properties whatsoever. I see your point about living creature vs corpse vs undead, but I don't buy it. When you change a corpse into an undead, you are still increasing the amount of self-aware free-willed negative energy in teh world. I will concede that creating mindless undead (skeletons and zombies) is not necessarily evil in the context of the OP other background material, as they have no mind of their own, and can only obey the orders of their creator.
Kedami 09-25-07, 08:07 AM	I like many of the points made here. It's also helping me fit things better into my world. I was thinking, for Clerics, about giving them the ability to prepare extra Domain spells. Clerics gain 4th level spells at lv7 (I believe), so at that level they can prepare an extra 1st level Domain spell. As each spell level increases, they can prepare and extra Domain spell at their lowest level. I use the spell point variant in my campaigns (It helps balance out spells and psionics a little, since psionics is a little under-powered damage wise IN MY OPINION because they have to pay extra for mroe dice (please, I don't want to discuss that, it's just what I feel)). By using spell points, that means that when they have 9th level spells, they will both Domain spells prepared up to level 6 spells. So they are better in terms of spells. Anyway, a decent Cleric should be able to qualify easily for the feat and it would be interesting to see a Druid who hates them enough to take the feat.
Rhialto 09-25-07, 12:47 PM	Extra clarification: I don't see positive or negatie energy as intrionsically aligned. Rather it is the context in which they are used that I see as aligned. For a creature to willingly create something whose existence can only be harmful to himself and entities similar to himself is evil - about as objective a definition of evil as you can reasonably define. By this logic, it would be an evil act for a vampire to create a living (positive energy) creature.
Ecalsneerg 09-25-07, 01:20 PM	Have you considered adding positive energy undead to your campaign?
Kedami 09-25-07, 02:11 PM	Positive Energy Undead? Are you talking about Deathless? If so, I don't have the Eberron Campaign Setting (I believe that they are from there). If not, it would make it quite interesting (and I could make reversals for the things like the Destruction Retribution feat).
Rotfl_and_Lol 09-25-07, 02:22 PM	Have you considered adding positive energy undead to your campaign? Deathless FTW! You could also consider negative energy living creatures (there are few in some MMs). Cleric nerf is good, but that makes Druid even more imbalanced. Maybe consider negative energy being natural? That would allow to create negative energy based nerf for druid. I remember that mindless undead in 3.0 had neutral alignment. As far as I remember nothing states that undead have any kind of life-vision, so you could even make undead work in normal cities if they are blinded properly and can't see healthy living bodies. Having family "unkilled" as a undead that aren't clearly evil could be great boon. PS. As far as I remember in Spell point system you have to pay for increased damage like in psionic. And psionics don't need to be nerfed. Well played wizard can outdo any psion in any way (you just need to go meta-madness, and class like incantrix). PS 2. Feats you created shouldn't be available to every class IMO. Monks have good wisdom too, and I don't like image of monk being followed by wights, vampires and other chaotic and obviously evil creatures, especially because he doesn't know thing about them. And undead should be both in k(arcana) and k(religion) IMO. Clerics have more contact with dead than typical person (burials etc.), and it shouldn't be forgotten.
Ecalsneerg 09-25-07, 03:07 PM	Positive Energy Undead? Are you talking about Deathless? If so, I don't have the Eberron Campaign Setting (I believe that they are from there). I meant in general. Since I use 3rd party stuff (so sue me :P ), I have no idea what Deathless are. I just know you get positive energy undead in some settings. Or some nice gods who interpret "I want immortality oh lord!" as "Make me a sentient undead!"
Kedami 09-25-07, 03:31 PM	PS 2. Feats you created shouldn't be available to every class IMO. Monks have good wisdom too, and I don't like image of monk being followed by wights, vampires and other chaotic and obviously evil creatures, especially because he doesn't know thing about them. And undead should be both in k(arcana) and k(religion) IMO. Clerics have more contact with dead than typical person (burials etc.), and it shouldn't be forgotten. I can't see a problem with an evil monk controlling undead or a good monk turning them. Same goes for Druids. Both are about balance, pretty much (monks clearly about inner balance rather than natural balance), so they could see the undead as tools to balance the positive and negative forces in the world (evil) or as beings that should be (like ALL good characters in standard campaigns). Also, the dead are related to religion, not the undead. Where you go afterwords is things to do with clerics and religion, but what happens to you body and soul if they stay are all magic based. That's the way I see it. (Like I said, I thinking paying extra for psionics and spells should work the same. I just feel that a 10th level wizard could Fireball or Cone of Cold for 1d6 (can't remember Cone's damage die) whereas a Psion has to pay 5 extra points (although Energy Cone in mind, that's an awesome power).)
deathbane 09-25-07, 07:18 PM	Obviously any undead that needs to feed may tend towards evil (unless it chooses to only feed on evil people). Commiting evil acts on an evil person is still evil
Kedami 09-25-07, 07:23 PM	Commiting evil acts on an evil person is still evil Yeah, I can see what you mean, but from a good person's point of veiw who fights evil, they will see the act as evil, but the victim is kind of getting what they deserve. I feel like I've started something bad here...
Rustmonster 09-25-07, 08:14 PM	Have you considered adding positive energy undead to your campaign? I've always seen this as, IMHO, not a good idea. Being powered by negative energy is really one of the most unique things about undead. If they are powered by positive energy, they just living creatures with immunities. It was, also IMHO, just a cop-out because WoTC made a mistake (silly undead alighnemnt rules), so they tryed to "fix it" with those things. The non-aligned undead creation works in that it is internally consistent, except for one issue. If all living creatures are born of a spark of positive energy and all undead are born of a spark of negative energy, then all undead, by the very nature of their physical composition, must be harmful to all living creatures. Given this is something that no undead could change, no matter how well-intentioned, and that any living creature must be aware of, I'm not sure how it could not be an evil act for a living creature to create undead. Although i can see how it would not necessarily be evil (or good) for an undead creature to create undead. Ya, and by your argument, all undead creatures are harmed by all living creatures. Is that alright then? And no, they do not harm each other unless they attack each other. The energy is contained, so I can't get out to harm people. Turn/Destroy Undead (General): Prerequisits: Wisdom 15, non-evil alignment Benefit: Gain the ability to Turn Undead Rebuke/Control Undead (General): Prerequisits: Wisdom 15, non-good alignment Benefit: Gain ability to Rebuke Undead Please note that in my setting, Negative and Positive energy are not aligned either, although I have ruled that natural bodies and souls are made of (or contain large amounts of) Positive energy, which is why Negative energy harms such beings. The opposite is true for Undead. If they are unalighned, why can't you be Good and channel Negative energy (for Rebuke Undead), and why can't you be Evil and channel positive energy (Turn Undead)? Obviously any undead that needs to feed may tend towards evil (unless it chooses to only feed on evil people). Undead who feed can also eat livestock. They don't HAVE to eat sentient beings. I feel like I've started something bad here... Likely.
Talisman 09-25-07, 09:58 PM	This entire post is prefaced with "In My Opinion..." Deathless positive-energy undead, found in both Eberron and the Book of Exalted Deeds) are stupid. As Rustmonster noted, logically they're either (1) undead by another name, or (2) living creatures with undead immunities. Either way, their reason for existence is tenuous. If you want good-aligned undead, just use good-aligned undead!
deathbane 09-25-07, 10:01 PM	Yeah, I can see what you mean, but from a good person's point of veiw who fights evil, they will see the act as evil, but the victim is kind of getting what they deserve. I feel like I've started something bad here... I was assuming you kill anyone who is detected as evil, and if the good person sees it as evil they won't allow it unless necessary. I know good people, normally the PC's, kill the evil ones, but getting eaten by an undead is cruel and unusual punishment, however I agree that not all undead should be seem as evil. It should depend on the circumstances. I don't want to change the topic of the thread so I will leave it at that.
ragoftag 09-25-07, 10:11 PM	Talisman undead-ificationI love this word! Making ALL undead 'evil' prevents such dramatic plot devices as Hamlet's father returning to chat, the spirits of 'A Christmas Carol', etc. I have ancient Elven Spirits 'haunting' their lost cities and pulling duty as oracles for loose change. Great way to introduce enigmatic riddles and warnings as the spirit fades, safe from having to explain! I also have a couple of 'living dead' races and may add a new one. Who sez they have to have ALL the Undead Type's goodies?
Talisman 09-25-07, 10:24 PM	Talisman I love this word! Making ALL undead 'evil' prevents such dramatic plot devices as Hamlet's father returning to chat, the spirits of 'A Christmas Carol', etc. True enough, but such plot devices are more dramatic if most (though not all) undead are malicious spectres of death and decay. I'm a fan of the non-evil undead...as long as there's a good reason and as long as that is the exception, not the rule.
Kedami 09-26-07, 01:31 PM	If they are unalighned, why can't you be Good and channel Negative energy (for Rebuke Undead), and why can't you be Evil and channel positive energy (Turn Undead)? Undead who feed can also eat livestock. They don't HAVE to eat sentient beings. I'll change the feats, since that makes sense. I also like the livestock thing.
Novem 09-26-07, 03:05 PM	Hi. I'm one of the people mentioned in the "Why are Undead Evil" Thread. The earlier posters have a point, by the way- I've just about given up arguing. Back on topic, I have to say I love the idea, (as I have adopted it myself), except for the idea of positive-energy Undead. The point of Undead is that they aren't powered by positive energy, after all. Does anyone know what Constructs are powered by, if anything?
deathbane 09-26-07, 03:43 PM	Hi. I'm one of the people mentioned in the "Why are Undead Evil" Thread. The earlier posters have a point, by the way- I've just about given up arguing. Back on topic, I have to say I love the idea, (as I have adopted it myself), except for the idea of positive-energy Undead. The point of Undead is that they aren't powered by positive energy, after all. Does anyone know what Constructs are powered by, if anything? Constructs have elementals binded to them.
Novem 09-26-07, 04:03 PM	Thanks.
Rustmonster 09-26-07, 08:46 PM	Constructs have elementals binded to them. Fun Fact!!!! Trapping a living elemental spirit in a golem is somehow less Evil than putting non-living Negative energy into a dead body! Yay for nonesense!
Zaranthan 09-26-07, 10:21 PM	Fun Fact!!!! Trapping a living elemental spirit in a golem is somehow less Evil than putting non-living Negative energy into a dead body! Yay for nonesense! I'm reasonably certain that most forms of undead creation bind the body's original soul as well. That's why most ghosts, wraiths, etc. are so ****** off. I agree that mindless undead should be regarded in much the same way as golems.
deathbane 09-27-07, 01:28 AM	Fun Fact!!!! Trapping a living elemental spirit in a golem is somehow less Evil than putting non-living Negative energy into a dead body! Yay for nonesense! Slightly off topic, but in Eberron they have just discovered that elementals are sentient beings, and there are some fighting to stop it(binding), but much of Eberron(especially transportation) depends on it, so it is not going so well. I don't remember which book that was or if it was from D&D's homepage.
Rustmonster 09-27-07, 09:31 AM	I'm reasonably certain that most forms of undead creation bind the body's original soul as well. That's why most ghosts, wraiths, etc. are so ****** off. I agree that mindless undead should be regarded in much the same way as golems. This point is debatable. Although it is IMPLIED that undead have at least a small portion of the origianal soul in them, it is never stated in the rules, and is actually dispoven with certain texts. Examples are in the Mohrg description from Libris Mortis, where it says that most Good adventuring Mohrgs are ones trying to atone for their past sins. Then again, it is unlikely that the origianal soul is still in the Mohrg, as you can still use spells that allow the talking to of spirits when their body has been occupied by an undead, and as you can still make an undead from a corpse that has had Trap the Soul used on it. Now, what I PERSONALLY beleive is the case is that every undead has a sort of "shadow" of the former soul within it. Although this is not the original soul, it has many of the memories from the soul, and may even ACT like the former occupant. The real soul still goes to the afterlife. This canexplain why a Mohrg may decide to "atone for his sins", as he THINKS he is the origional occupant.
deathbane 09-27-07, 01:07 PM	This point is debatable. Although it is IMPLIED that undead have at least a small portion of the origianal soul in them, it is never stated in the rules, and is actually dispoven with certain texts. Examples are in the Mohrg description from Libris Mortis, where it says that most Good adventuring Mohrgs are ones trying to atone for their past sins. Then again, it is unlikely that the origianal soul is still in the Mohrg, as you can still use spells that allow the talking to of spirits when their body has been occupied by an undead, and as you can still make an undead from a corpse that has had Trap the Soul used on it. Now, what I PERSONALLY beleive is the case is that every undead has a sort of "shadow" of the former soul within it. Although this is not the original soul, it has many of the memories from the soul, and may even ACT like the former occupant. The real soul still goes to the afterlife. This canexplain why a Mohrg may decide to "atone for his sins", as he THINKS he is the origional occupant. I think some undead are evil manifestations of their former selves, and others are just bodies(zombies and skeletons) reanimated by negative energy. I think it is the soul because if it was not the soul then the soul could be revived even as the corpse(mohrg for example) was somewhere else, but since you would have to kill the mohrg and to bring the soul back then it seems like it should be the original person.
Rustmonster 09-27-07, 03:25 PM	I think some undead are evil manifestations of their former selves, and others are just bodies(zombies and skeletons) reanimated by negative energy. I think it is the soul because if it was not the soul then the soul could be revived even as the corpse(mohrg for example) was somewhere else, but since you would have to kill the mohrg and to bring the soul back then it seems like it should be the original person. Short answer, no. You can't come back to life if your body is in use. It's not a matter of your soul not being ABLE to be revived, it's a matter of there is not way to revive you while the body is in use. Yet again, the though of it being the persons soul is disputed by the fact you can make undead from the body of someone who has had their soul stolen. If it used the original soul, then you wouldn't be able to do that.
deathbane 09-27-07, 03:38 PM	Short answer, no. You can't come back to life if your body is in use. It's not a matter of your soul not being ABLE to be revived, it's a matter of there is not way to revive you while the body is in use. That is what I said. Basically the person/their soul is what is inside that morgh. Once you kill them again, their soul is free to move on or be res'd, if they are willing, but if the soul is trapped somewhere, and the body is dead you can still make it into a zombie or skeleton.
Tequila_Sunrise 09-27-07, 04:44 PM	Fun Fact!!!! Trapping a living elemental spirit in a golem is somehow less Evil than putting non-living Negative energy into a dead body! Yay for nonesense! My assumption is that binding an elemental to a hunk of stone is just as evil as creating undead, even if the books don't say so. Sometimes you have to write your own flavor text.
Euclid 09-27-07, 07:15 PM	Please note that in my setting, Negative and Positive energy are not aligned eitherThey normally aren't. then all undead, by the very nature of their physical composition, must be harmful to all living creatures.Are all living creatures inherently harmful to undead? Aren't living creatures usually far more dangerous to other living creatures than undead ones are? If they are unalighned, why can't you be Good and channel Negative energy (for Rebuke Undead), and why can't you be Evil and channel positive energy (Turn Undead)? Because the rules are self-contradictary. but getting eaten by an undead is cruel and unusual punishment, How is it more so than getting eaten by an animal? Or being killed in one of the many imaginative manners living beings have come up with?
Euclid 09-27-07, 07:17 PM	My assumption is that binding an elemental to a hunk of stone is just as evil as creating undead, even if the books don't say so. Sometimes you have to write your own flavor text. Really? So slavery and endangerment in the form of golems is somehow less evil than bringing a bit of unaligned negative energy into the world?
Kedami 09-27-07, 07:22 PM	<On me saying that the energies are not aligned in my campaign.> They normally aren't. I just assumed that they were. When I said that living things were made of Positive energy, I meant that it was contained. So touching an undead wouldn't cause a spark or whatever. Since posting that I have removed it from my ideas for my campaign world, so I will be editing it out of my first post. On a different note, I didn't know that golems contained elementals. Is that in the Monster Manual and I just haven't read more than the stats block (yeah... I do that sometimes) or is it in a different book? (I'd like to know even though this thread has nothing to do with golems (or started out that way).)
DM-Scott 09-27-07, 10:37 PM	A few ideas... Depending on exactly what you're going for in regards to being able to turn undead, I should point out a few things you may wish to keep in mind. Turn undead seems to be meant to function even if your wisdom is poor, and a 15 wisdom is actually a pretty high requirement (especially for standard or even stronger point buys) to meet for a feat. Especially when you consider that if that character somehow drops below 15 wisdom (through a spell, poison, curse, or what have you) then they suddenly loose the benefit of the feat (and any feat relying on that feat). I think this is especially important to consider, when turn / rebuke undead only is useful against a select type of enemy. Basically, would you want to take the ranger's Favored Enemy class skill as a feat if it had a 15 wis or even 15 strength requirement? On the flip side, I think turn / rebuke undead are wonderful abilities, and if the prerequisites were reduced, would be worth it, and could actually function very well with character building (I mean building for concept, not power - such as multiclass characters going for paladin and necromancer flavors; though the paladin aspect probably doesn't seem appealing to your campaign since you mentioned the separation of clerics & paladins from undead). Now, if you weren't using any divine feats (those that let you spend turn / rebuke attempts to get super powers), then you could actually consider removing the prerequisites entirely (on the grounds that many characters simply wouldn't want it, and would rather spend their feats on something else). The characters most likely to take such a feat would probably be sorcerers, favored souls, paladins, and bards (oddly enough), because of turn undead's reliance on charisma to be great. It also has the side effect of making clerics less Multi-Ability-Dependant. Ok, those are just some things to think about. I haven't thought about it long enough to really give a positive or negative answer (no pun intended) to the question. As far as game mechanics go, I have a few suggestions (especially if you haven't read the undead topic on the general board right now - warning, that thread's long) for everyone. You may take them or leave them as you wish. This assumes that a creature's "alignment" is a moral alignment, and that true alignments (the kind of pure good, pure evil, pure law, pure chaos) are better defined with the subtypes. Make the following changes to the core system. 1: Make mindless creatures Neutral. 2: Creatures that are created from / connected to raw evil gain the [Evil] subtype if they do not already have it. 3: Remove alignment subtypes (such as [Evil]) from the spells Animate Dead, Deathwatch, etcetera. 4: Remove the effects of detect evil on undead. 4.5: Replace with the same effects for any creature with the [Evil] subtype. 4.8: Make similar changes to the other detect [alignment] spells. 5: Alter certain spells (such as Hallow and Unhallow) so that undead are not affected by them. Follow the newly altered core rules, to decide any further changes to spells you use (basing alignment based things off subtype rather than supertype type). There, you're done. Undead that function perfectly within the rules, and it also clears up problems people have with certain ambiguous explanations for alignment in regards to all creatures. Further Options If you do want to have certain undead be truly evil, such as famine spirits, morgues, wraiths, nightwalkers, or whatever, simply add the [Evil] subtype to them. This can also be done to create truly evil versions of mindless undead (such as skeletons and zombies). This has 2 effects. First, they are treated as evil regardless of their actual alignment, and instantly become susceptible to virtually every holy based thing out there (smite evil, holy smite, holy word, holy weapons, etc) as well as showing up as strongly evil with the detect evil spell (as noted in the modifications to the core rules). Second, their attacks are considered aligned for the purposes of overcoming DR (so an [Evil] morgue can hurt creatures with DR / Evil. This has little to no effect on game balance, and actually solidifies such creatures as horrendously evil entities if that is what you wish. The same can be done for [Good], [Lawful], and [Chaotic] creatures, with the same effects. Hopefully I will write out a full list of changes to the game and post it very soon. Fortunately, I believe you'll find these changes are very easy to make, and function very well within the core rules, without conflicting both internally, as well as from campaign to campaign, as the current rules do. Hope this helps a bit. Peace out, Game on.
Kedami 09-28-07, 09:23 AM	DM-Scott: I like a lot of the things you said, but the feats I may keep the same. My players are good optimisers, so any character that they built with the intent of fighting the undead will probably meet the prerequisits. Their ability to build characters probably comes from when I'm a player and I help them build theirs and they've picked up the general idea. On the other hand, I can't see many people taking the feat unless they really want to fight undead. I've noticed that in my games the Wizards tend to have low wisdom and charisma (as everything good goes towards intelligence, constitution and dexterity in that order), but it would be good to see a necromancer rebuking undead. I'm still undecided what to go with at this point, but I'll definately be renaming divine feats (maybe Turning feats?).
Rustmonster 09-28-07, 09:32 AM	That is what I said. Basically the person/their soul is what is inside that morgh. Once you kill them again, their soul is free to move on or be res'd, if they are willing, but if the soul is trapped somewhere, and the body is dead you can still make it into a zombie or skeleton. No, no, no, no. That is not what I said! The soul is NOT inside the undead. I repeat. It is NOT inside the undead. It NEVER says this ANYWHERE in the text. You obviously did not understand (or read) my post. The fact that you can make ANY undead (not just skelotons and zombies) with a corpse whos former soul was somehow destroyed/trapped, proves that undead do NOT bind the soul to the undead. The soul is therefore NOT in the undead. I didn't want to have to explain this to someone AGAIN, because it's rather long, but here we go: Revive spells (other than true Res, which I will talk about in a second) can't revive you if your body is in use by an undead because the target for these spells is "Dead creature touched". Since the undead is not a dead creature, and is indeed not even the same creature anymore, you can NOT revive them while the undead is active. Now, with True Ressurection, the same is true, other than one point. You can also revive someone whos body has been completly destroyed. Now, this of course means that you need not target the corpse. This is the ONLY exception, however. The spell is still target "Dead creature touched", but with the exception that if the body is TOTALLY DESTROYED, you may revive them without the body. Do you understand now? It's not that you can't revive them because their soul is trapped in the undead, it's because there is no suitable target for the spell. No soul trapping.
Tequila_Sunrise 09-28-07, 12:59 PM	Really? So slavery and endangerment in the form of golems is somehow less evil than bringing a bit of unaligned negative energy into the world? In my flavor text, creating undead and creating golems are both very evil acts. Why? Because the caster is enslaving a part or a whole of someone's soul in order to gain complete dominance over said soul.
Tequila_Sunrise 09-28-07, 01:04 PM	On a different note, I didn't know that golems contained elementals. Is that in the Monster Manual and I just haven't read more than the stats block (yeah... I do that sometimes) or is it in a different book? (I'd like to know even though this thread has nothing to do with golems (or started out that way).) No, it's in the good ol' MM and it's very easy to miss. Page 134 says: "The animating force for a golem is a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem's creator."
Rustmonster 09-28-07, 02:55 PM	In my flavor text, creating undead and creating golems are both very evil acts. Why? Because the caster is enslaving a part or a whole of someone's soul in order to gain complete dominance over said soul. Hi. Please read my last post. Short version, making undead enslaves no souls.
Tequila_Sunrise 09-28-07, 03:00 PM	Hi. Please read my last post. Short version, making undead enslaves no souls. Hi. I'm not interested in arguing. If I were, I would be posting on the 'Why are undead evil?' thread. If you want to know why your post is utterly irrelevant, read mine again but without your automatic presumption that I am wrong. If you still really want to argue, go back to 'Why are undead evil?' Have a nice day.
Rustmonster 09-28-07, 10:22 PM	Hi. I'm not interested in arguing. If I were, I would be posting on the 'Why are undead evil?' thread. If you want to know why your post is utterly irrelevant, read mine again but without your automatic presumption that I am wrong. If you still really want to argue, go back to 'Why are undead evil?' Have a nice day. In my flavor text, creating undead and creating golems are both very evil acts. Why? Because the caster is enslaving a part or a whole of someone's soul in order to gain complete dominance over said soul. Hi. Well, I don't want to argue either. I was trying to be polite, but I guess you can't register that. So you may not want to act like a jerk about it next time. I'm guessing you didn't go back and read my post, right? Because you probably made the automatic presumtion that I was wrong. I read your post. I was simply pointing out that what you said was, as you put it, "in your flavor text". It's something that you made, as flavour. Animate Dead does not trap a soul. I explained why. It was indeed relevant, as I was correcting you. It is also relavent, because one poster made a comment about the soul issue. I was trying to help them out. I as much as anyone else would like to get back to the original topic. But when people post things that are not correct, I feel the need to comment. I can do that if I like. If you can give me a passage in any D&D text where it mentions the soul being bound to an undead, I would like a page number and the source. Until you can do that, you are wrong.
DM-Scott 09-29-07, 03:33 AM	DM-Scott: I like a lot of the things you said, but the feats I may keep the same. My players are good optimisers, so any character that they built with the intent of fighting the undead will probably meet the prerequisits. Their ability to build characters probably comes from when I'm a player and I help them build theirs and they've picked up the general idea. On the other hand, I can't see many people taking the feat unless they really want to fight undead. I've noticed that in my games the Wizards tend to have low wisdom and charisma (as everything good goes towards intelligence, constitution and dexterity in that order), but it would be good to see a necromancer rebuking undead. I'm still undecided what to go with at this point, but I'll definately be renaming divine feats (maybe Turning feats?). Thank you Kedami. I hope it helps. Also, it's fine to keep the prerequisites as they are. I just wanted to point out a few considerations beforehand, and I didn't know if you had considered those aspects (which you clearly have :) ). My players tend to optimize their characters as well, and usually ask me to help them get them tuned up (I love my players :P ), both from a game optimization and role playing perspective. In short, I know where you're coming from. :) On the aspect of renaming the divine feats; I'm not really sure that would be a good idea off the top of my head. Most of the divine feats I can think of have little to do with undead, and even less to do with positive and negative energy. Some of them could be simply altered; like this for example. Divine Vengeance [Divine] Prerequisites Ability to turn undead, Extra Turning. Benefit You can spend one of your turn undead attempts to add 2d6 points of sacred energy damage to all your successful melee attacks against undead until the end of your next action. This is a supernatural ability. You could change it to look like this. ------------------- Turning Weapon [Turning] Prerequisites Ability to turn or rebuke undead, Extra Turning. Benefit: You can spend one of your turn attempts to add 2d6 points of positive energy damage to all your successful melee attacks until the end of your next action. This is a supernatural ability. Special: You may spend a rebuke attempt in the same way to add 2d6 points of negative energy damage to all your successful melee attacks until the end of your next action. Note: Positive energy heals living creatures, and harms undead. Negative energy heals undead and harms living creatures. ------------------- It's not perfect, but it gives you an idea of how you could change things around a bit. Though you could just create your own feats, like this... Channeling Weapon [Turning] You can channel the elements through your melee weapons. Benefit: As a swift action you may spend a rebuke undead attempt to add an extra 1d6 negative energy damage to a chosen natural or manufactured weapon (if you choose a natural weapon you have multiples of, such as claw attacks it affects each claw attack you make). If you spend a turn undead attempt, you instead add 1d6 positive energy to the attack instead. This effect lasts for 10 rounds. Special: Characters with the ability to rebuke air, earth, fire, or water creatures may instead spend one of these attempts to add 1d6 electricity, 1d6 acid, 1d6 fire, or 1d6 cold damage respectively. Note: Positive energy heals living creatures and harms undead, and has no effect on objects or constructs (except living constructs). This feat allows you to sack a turn or rebuke attempt to turn your weapon into a positive or negative weapon (found in Libris Mortis, the equivalent to a positive or negative elemental weapon), or an elemental weapon if you are a cleric with an elemental domain. If you still want to include divine feats, I'd give clerics and other divine classes a special number of points (divine points) in the place of turning attempts and probably a bonus divine feat at the level they would otherwise have gained turn / rebuke undead. Since they don't have the options of turning or rebuking, perhaps increase these points by 1 every 4 levels of experience (giving them 7 points at 20th level before charisma modifier) to power their divine feats with. Just some ideas. This is an interesting subject. I await your thoughts. :) Peace out, Game on.
Dex 09-29-07, 04:33 AM	Rustmonster, Consider Tequila_Sunrise's "making undead = need souls" to be a house rule i.e. it is not just flavor text anymore, because players can't ignore it. By RAW, you are right, but Tequila_Sunrise and most of this thread is in a place where the RAW has changed. But on topic, I'm not sure I agree with clerics getting turn/rebuke undead dumped. Channeling positive and negative energy (to change spells into cure/inflict spells) is a primary part of being a cleric, and turning/rebuking is arguably another aspect of this, no matter whether undead are evil, not evil or some evil. If you don't like good clerics = positive and evil clerics = negative, then you could simply change the class abilities so that when a character gains a level of cleric they choose whether to channel positive or negative.
Tequila_Sunrise 09-29-07, 01:53 PM	Consider Tequila_Sunrise's "making undead = need souls" to be a house rule i.e. it is not just flavor text anymore, because players can't ignore it. By RAW, you are right, but Tequila_Sunrise and most of this thread is in a place where the RAW has changed. Maybe people like Rustmonster wouldn't jump down my throat so often if I referred to "undead = souls" as a house rule. Though it would kill me to do so, because technically it's not a house rule. It's not even a rule. It's actually just a bit of flavor text that makes the undead alignment guidelines more consistent. Though I'm sure that Rustmonster will beat me over the head with his "logic stick" for making this metaphor, but the RAW is just a skeleton of rules with a few ragged chunks of flavor text hanging on, but those chunks don't flesh much of the game out. I consider it a DM's job to flesh out the flavor text in his campaign in order to make the rules more consistent or to change the rules to be more consistent, as Kedami is doing.
DM-Scott 09-29-07, 02:35 PM	Though it would kill me to do so, because technically it's not a house rule. It's not even a rule. It's actually just a bit of flavor text that makes the undead alignment guidelines more consistent. I've noticed like 3 people saying this...can anyone point me to the flavor text they are specifically referring to? Or is this flavor text you wrote for your campaign's flavor? And no, I'm not trying to argue with you. What you're doing is fine and cool, but I sincerely do want to know where this fluff is coming from, so I can read up on it.
Tequila_Sunrise 09-29-07, 03:35 PM	I've noticed like 3 people saying this...can anyone point me to the flavor text they are specifically referring to? Or is this flavor text you wrote for your campaign's flavor? And no, I'm not trying to argue with you. What you're doing is fine and cool, but I sincerely do want to know where this fluff is coming from, so I can read up on it. It's not in any published source that I know of. I'm not sure if I read this bit of flavor text from an earlier edition, or if I yoinked it from some myth or novel, or if I just made it up myself. In any case, the idea that an undead is powered by the soul that used to live in it has always been to me a simple and elegent reason that Animate Dead and related spells have the [evil] descriptor. I can't remember a time when this flavor text wasn't part of my campaigns, so maybe I just made the assumption as soon as I started playing. I remember thinking the first time I heard someone express the idea that undead are not powered by souls, "Huh? Well if undead are powered by undefined magic, doesn't that make them just animated objects?" Not to start another argument, that was just my immediate gut reaction.
DM-Scott 09-29-07, 10:55 PM	Ahhh, cool thanks. :D It's been a curiosity of mine for a while. :)
DrakoShade 09-30-07, 01:46 PM	On the topic of undead, I don't see why they have to be evil, myself. You're taking the husk of a once-living person (whose soul is now, presumably, a petitioner on the plane of his choice) and infusing it with a different kind of energy in order to re-animate it. Since the body (if there was enough of it left to create an undead in the first place) retains some echo of the original occupant's soul, an intelligent undead will likely begin to resemble the person it was made from (who, as already mentioned, is likely happily basking in some upper plane.) Your newly animated undead dude has just had a brand-new anti-soul made from the negative energy of the spell. BAM! If he's sentient, and was animated relatively early in the process, I highly recommend a Ring of Gentle Repose. Now, on the slightly related topic of constructs... I've always houseruled them to be rather the opposite of creating undead. You take something that was never alive in the first place (rocks, chunks of iron or obdurium, whatever) and use positive energy to put a brand spanking new soul into it. Since you are a mere mortal, not a God, it has a tendency to be a mindless soul, but it's still pretty good work! If you're really good (or just lucky) you get a soul that, not far down the road, will be asking you questions like "Daddy, what is Fluffy doing to that other dog?" Congratulations, you've created intelligent life... and while it may be bright, it IS brand spanking new. Just be glad this one doesn't come with the price of diapers. In this way, neither method of animation is actually good or evil. It's just a question of what you started with, and what you stuffed it with. If you filled a corpse with positive energy, you probably just tried to resurrect the original occupant. If you filled a bunch of rocks with negative energy, you probably just wasted a spell (though you may end up with a third kind of creation altogether... >.> ) (As a further side-note, this system modifies those positive/negative bursts our Clerics and Paladins are so fond of into Turn Undead / Rebuke Construct and Turn Construct / Rebuke Undead (which works rather well, in my opinion, with Turn Fire / Rebuke Water, Turn Water / Rebuke Fire, Turn Earth / Rebuke Air, and Turn Air / Rebuke Earth. Toss in the Good / Evil and Law / Chaos pairs, and you've got a full set for your clerics to choose from. (Just make sure he picks one and sticks with it, unless you allow feats and domains to offer expanded ones... (I love abusing parenthetical statements (especially nested ones.))))) This, my friends, has been another episode of DrakoShade's Trainwreck of Thought Finds its Way Onto the Forums. Thanks for tuning in.
Kedami 10-01-07, 01:36 PM	Wow, plenty to comment on. That's what happens when I'm ofline for a few days playing Oblivion and working on the setting. Ok, first I just meant changing the name of the category of feats, but I can see the point of veiw in changing the actual feat names too (since many have the word "divine" or "sacred" in them. Actually, I'll need to check my Complete Divine to validate that statement). I think that maybe I'll consider the Divine Points system for use with Divine Feats as they are. It sounds like a good system, but I may have to look over it properly before I make my final decision. I'm not actually all that confident about the other feats that were suggested that allow you to turn other creatures. It sounds like a good idea, but it sounds like it may take introducing more feats (the names of which can be derived from your post, DrakoShade). Also, please note that the MM states that Golems are made from a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. That may not be actual Elementals, but it sounds more than likely that it is since a side-bar in the Complete Divine states that (among other creatures) Elementals are spirits (the same side-bar also mentions Oriental Adventures, which I don't have). I don't mind that constructs are being discussed as well on this thread, since it seems that the subjects overlap, just try and not to argue, please. On the subject of whether a soul is inside an undead being or not, I'd have to say that the soul still passes on to whatever Plane it wants to go to. Note that in the Libris Mortis (page 11, under Undead Propagation and Prevention of Unlife) it states that some people may pray to their Gods to protect their body from rising as an undead (it also notes a spell on page 71). This would mean that any kind of sentience after being raised by spawn creation is on the body and the soul can pass on, so shouldn't the soul be able to move on from a spell? A corpse under the effects of Gentle Repose could be turned into an undead by a caster hundreds of years after the soul reaches an outer plane, so the soul wouldn't be dragged back into its body (none of the creation spells state that it is). I think the only case that I can see a soul not moving on is the Lich, but that is a bit obvious. The only cases where I can see an undead resebling the personality they had in life are the Vampire and Ghost. I can't see any other undead beings (mostly because of the way they are described, hunger issues and whatnot) acting as they did in life. Sure, Mohrgs were murderers, but are adventurers not too? Ghouls seem to act mostly on hunger, so they may not be close to their personality in life. I have a few problems with incorporeal undead on this matter. Either they are shadows of their former selves (Wraiths), or they are actually the soul of a dead person who cannot move on (like a Ghost). Can someone tell me what Shadows are born from (except other Shadows!) as it doesn't mention it in the Monster Manual. I mean like Mohrg = Murderer/Villain who didn't atone; Ghoul/Ghast = Someone who savoured human (or humanoid) flesh while alive. I didn't want to get into that because it may cause arguements instead of solving them, but I'm going by what's in the books. Also, Ring of Gentle Repose?
Tequila_Sunrise 10-01-07, 02:08 PM	Can someone tell me what Shadows are born from (except other Shadows!) as it doesn't mention it in the Monster Manual. I mean like Mohrg = Murderer/Villain who didn't atone; Ghoul/Ghast = Someone who savoured human (or humanoid) flesh while alive. There are quite a few undead that, like Shadows, don't have detailed origins. If you want them, I think you'll have to create origins for them. It may seem lazy of the designers to forego certain undead origins (and to be ambiguous about other undead-related issue), but remember that it's just not important in most games to know where X undead came from. For most players, it's enough that there's an ugly scary lookin' dead thing charging us...we've gotta kill it before it kills us! As an aside, I think the existing origins for ghouls and mohrgs are pretty shallow. I mean really, does every unrepentant murderer rise as a ghoul? Well, I guess ghouls are supposed to be pretty common. And honestly, is cannibalism really common enough in the d&d world to justify its own undead type? And wouldn't that make just about every orc rise as a mohrg? And then there's the issue of ghouls and mohrgs created by spells, which mention nothing about the caster specifically needing the bodies of murderers and cannibals.
DrakoShade 10-01-07, 06:32 PM	Kedami, the long listing of opposed turn/rebukes was actually mostly referencing the various granted Domain powers, right up until the end with good/evil and law/chaos. I don't recall seeing those. As for the ring of gentle repose, what kind of self-respecting lich actually wants to look like he's been dead for three hundred years when, with a little forward planning, he can make sure that he always keeps that freshly-slain look? Edit: (And, yes, I am aware that the MM is quite specific about what animates constructs, and quite ambivalent about exactly why and how undead work... I'm pretty sure I did specify that my previous post was a house-ruling declaration. Didn't I? Maybe not. Either way, it just fits my aesthetic better to treat undead and constructs as a kind of symmetrical job, approaching the problem of labor from opposite directions to arrive at the same thing-- workers who don't demand dental.)
Devil Gnasher 10-01-07, 08:41 PM	Turn Undead is still available however.Turn/Destroy Undead (General): Prerequisits: Wisdom 15 Benefit: Gain the ability to Turn Undead Rebuke/Control Undead (General): Prerequisits: Wisdom 15 Benefit: Gain ability to Rebuke UndeadI'd like to hear what people think. Obviously any undead that needs to feed may tend towards evil (unless it chooses to only feed on evil people). Um, shouldn't there be some divine or arcane spellcasting requirement? I also think that the Turn or Rebuke Undead progression should be delayed if the class's spellcasting also is. Also require wizards to specialize in necromancy to take either one of these feats.
Bihlbo 01-29-08, 02:01 PM	I like a lot of the stuff being talked about here. As sort of an aside, I just wanted to make it known that I loathe alignment rule mechanics. I personally think every mention of spells, creatures, attacks, and effects that refer to C/E/G/L should be totally removed. Alignment should have as much of an impact on the character as a personality trait (ie it's a roleplaying device). But, obviously you're working with what we've got instead, so I'll keep my thoughts on those lines. If you're going to allow Good undead (which is cool) then I personally don't think it makes sense that an evil cleric is going to control them instead of turning them. It seems like the point of evil clercis rebuking instead of turning is based on a system in which all undead are evil. I think your Turn feats should be made into one feat. You turn undead with an opposed Good/Evil alignment to your own, and rebuke those of the same Good/Evil alignment as your own. If you are neutral, you have to pick Good or Evil when you take the feat; you turn or rebuke as that alignment. You can choose to turn or rebuke neutral undead (which should be limited to only mindless undead, right?), decided when you make the attempt. I also think a good prerequisite for the feat should be an appropriate rank in the skill pertaining to undead - Kn.(religion) or Kn.(arcane), whichever you're using in your setting. 5 ranks at least. This prevents a character from taking the feat without having any RP reason to care about undead. I disagree with Devil Gnasher. There's nothing inherantly spell-like in the turn mechanics. I don't think there's a reason to associate it with spellcasting ability at all, other than to just make it more "cleric-y."
Bihlbo 01-29-08, 02:02 PM	I want to point out that positive and negative energies are named misleadingly, and that might be causing people to immediately refer to negative energy as being a negative thing. Both are an animating force that causes something, like a body, to function in a way that appears life-like. And we only define "life-like" the way we do because we humans in the real world are living. If an undead creature walks, talks, thinks, then wouldn't it think of itself as "life-like" also? The fact that we call the energies names that invoke polarity is because they are opposed, but we only think of our energy as "positive" because it makes us alive. An undead with a wiped memory of what it meant to be alive might postulate that the energy that fuels it is "positive" and those freaky beings that look like it, but that live in that horrible light and live in constant sickness are fueled by "negative" energies. My point is this: positive energy makes a being with a metabolism function the way WE do. It's the energy of Life. Negative energy makes a being without a metabolism (or even a body) function the way THEY do. It's the energy of Unlife. Beings of these two types are no more opposed than mammals are to fish. But if the living try to accept the fuel of the unliving, they are harmed in the same way that mammals that try to breath water are harmed. It doesn't make fish "evil" just because we don't have compatable anatomies. And the argument that undead trap a soul in order to remain alive doesn't bear weight either. Is my soul less "trapped" in the meat sack I use to type this message? It's certainly not free to go to Mars without this skin. So, all you need to have an Evil undead is to make sure it hates all living things. And this isn't based on some idea that living=good, it's based on the driving force being hatred. A Good undead would have compassion on other things. A zombie who gets hungry and sees a living being as food really isn't much different than me when I go to KFC. And, following this logic, a Good living character should have compassion on those fueled by the Unlife Energy too. Just as much compassion as would be afforded a living creature, of course, so the paladin still has darn good reason to slaughter a ghast that just ate a child.
Thane26425 01-29-08, 03:37 PM	I can see some undead, like Zombies and Skeletons being neutral. Some of the others, however, specifically state that they are the animated form of some evil person, which is a rationale for them still being evil. By the same token, spawn of some of these creatures, like from wights or wraiths, they would also be evil because of the corrupt nature of their creation. As for good undead, in Libris Mortis there is a template for a good lich. I could see certain others being good, like a mummy, certain ghosts and such.
Selgard 01-29-08, 03:54 PM	Just thought i'd toss this in, for what ever (or little) it may be worth. According to the SRD at least (I don't have the MM with me at present), not all undead are absolutely 100% ALWAYS evil. The Mummy (and Mummy Lord) are both marked as "usually LE". This is contrasted by the others beiung marked "Always X Evil" (X being chaotic, lawful, or whatnot).
Dan Hemmens 02-17-08, 06:40 AM	On a side note: Have you considered replacing "Turn Undead" for Clerics with "Turn Enemies of my Deity/Rebuke Servants of my Deity". For generic Good/Evil Gods this could wind up being Turn/Rebuke Demons, for nature deities it could wind up being Rebuke Plants and Animals, and so on. A lot of Domains give this kind of option anyway, of course...