A thought about the Mark of Death - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

A thought about the Mark of Death

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi
Jun 13, 2009 21:43:33 I was reading the Eberron Campaign Setting (3.5), and I realized it may have given us more hints about the nature of the Mark of Death than we first realized. Like many, I had assumed it would have a lot of inflict wounds + assassination type spells. But reading through, I noticed that Vol introduced the idea of an undead army to Karrnath, the elves in general have a tendency to preserve themselves as undead/deathless, and Vol's mother "used her powers over death to make sure her daughter survived" (as a lich). Maybe the Mark of Death is more a Mark of Undeath. In its time, House Vol's "economic function" was in the creation of cheap warriors - an undead functional analog of the warforged? That's the story I'm going with now, at least. Maybe they also provided some services that led to the Undying Court - before the discovery and switch to Deathless rather than Undead occurred. That could lead to interesting plot hooks if some liches and vampires still survive, angered at being thrown out of the Undying Court for being negatively powered. Or if the Undying Court secretly accepts them into their number.
#2
skrapsan
Jun 14, 2009 0:56:53 I seem to remember mr Baker telling us that the mark of death in his world dealt with the creation of undeath, and that it was sort of an arms race of reaching the best way of perserving the elders of the society first. And the Vol family lost, but then agiain, when you turn Undead your mark stop working. Other than that I see no reason your explanation is not a great plott hook.
#3
Aaron_Highcolor
Jun 14, 2009 9:12:39 There was a trilogy of novels based upon the Mark of Death, but I can't really highly recommend it. But it's out there if you want to read it for maybe some fluff or flavor.
#4
Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi
Jun 14, 2009 14:06:51
There was a trilogy of novels based upon the Mark of Death, but I can't really highly recommend it. But it's out there if you want to read it for maybe some fluff or flavor.

I've read it. Personally, I enjoyed it. Then again, I read it once. It usually takes multiple reads to actually judge quality. Anyway, since Eberron novels are non-canonical, I feel free to see the author's take as just another possibility. After all, we're not supposed to ever get an official answer. Just a bunch of hypotheses. That said, I couldn't figure out what the claws of death power might be. Ghoul touch? But it seemed more deadly in the long run.

However, if I add it to my theory and acknowledge that there are several possible powers to each Mark, I'll expand my claim to say that the Mark of Death offered general death and undeath related powers. Some mark bearers were best suited for the creation of undead to sell as soldiers or servants, while others were better equipped for execution, assassination, and torture.
#5
skrapsan
Jun 14, 2009 23:29:16
...while others were better equipped for execution, assassination, and torture.

But then again, the true marks never had any directly offensive powers... at least not in 3rd ed.
#6
angelus_obscura
Jun 14, 2009 23:32:52 There are some old threads that might still be around in the archives somewhere in here that dealt with this theory. I even posited it myself a couple of years back. We basically included animate dead, create undead, create greater undead, and gentle repose or speak with the dead as the spells/powers for each 'mark tier. Creating an undead workforce, prserving and speaking with long dead ancestors were probably common before the fall of House Vol. However, channeling negative energy was probably frowned upon since the beginning and the Aerenal elves took advantage of Vol's betrayal [with the dragons] to wipe away the competition and such.

Also, with new dragonmark feats giving access to new sp-like abilities (Dragonmarked 3.5 book), other more offensive powers are likely to manifest. Ie Finger of death, chill touch, vampiric touch, etc.
#7
papa_duval
Jun 16, 2009 4:08:06 For my own campaign, i've always looked at the Mark of death as dealing with the difference between life and death - so i've never had it grant direct damaging powers like inflict wounds

Rather i've had it provide such abilities as Undeath to death, Death Knell and Death Watch - with the syberis ability being True Resurrection (representing the ultimate ability to reach through the barrier of death to bring someone back)
#8
Captain_Kobold
Jun 16, 2009 12:00:38 I've always looked at the Mark of Death as being more about the interaction of life and undeath as well. The mark might give abilities like Death Knell, Animate Dead or Speak with Dead, going up to Raise Dead or creating advanced undead for a Siberys mark.

My personal view is that Erandis Vol's Mark would have had the potential to destroy someone completely though. As in, "do not go to Dolurrh, do not stay to continue to guide your descendents, do not ascend to become part of the gods/undying court". The being is torn out of existence, leaving reality and the prophecy tattered and unravelling in its wake.
Its that sort of level of threat that would see the warring Dragons and Undying court combining forces to ensure that anyone with the smallest amount of the bloodline was killed.
#9
papa_duval
Jun 17, 2009 3:45:27 It was my understanding that they didn't destroy the mark of death just because it existed, but because the family was involved in other dodgy practices (like inter-breeding between dragons and elves)
#10
thegreatpook
Jun 17, 2009 12:49:11 Papa Duval, I love your interpretation of the Mark of Death. Thats exactly how I would use it. Imagine the trauma of having your mother die in front of you while turning you into a lich. Yikes. I can see Vol trying to find a way to reverse her undeath so she can use her mark to bring her mother back and perhaps the rest of her family as well.

Ah I love the morally gray "villains" of Eberron.
#11
Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi
Jun 17, 2009 20:48:48 I'm liking what I'm hearing here. Especially the Mark of Death as mastery over life and death. As for Eberron's morally gray villains - I love them too. I just never understood why Kaius was LE. Every bit of flavor text I read in the core setting paints him as a vampire trying to be good: making sure he doesn't draw too much blood from any one mistress, trying to make Karrnath a more open society (and reeling back the military dictatorship, even if he hasn't been successful there), etc. That doesn't sound evil. Maybe a harsh good, considering his practices, but evil? No.
#12
davethebrave371
Jun 17, 2009 21:49:53
I'm liking what I'm hearing here. Especially the Mark of Death as mastery over life and death. As for Eberron's morally gray villains - I love them too. I just never understood why Kaius was LE. Every bit of flavor text I read in the core setting paints him as a vampire trying to be good: making sure he doesn't draw too much blood from any one mistress, trying to make Karrnath a more open society (and reeling back the military dictatorship, even if he hasn't been successful there), etc. That doesn't sound evil. Maybe a harsh good, considering his practices, but evil? No.

I think KB described it this way: while his goals are good, he is willing to authorize (and do) ruthless, evil things to accomplish those goals...and according to 3.5 D&D, it is the action, not the intent, that is Evil (see the Book of Vile Darkness). It's the same reason that manipulative (WORD I CAN'T SAY ON THE FORUMS) Aurala is NG. It's all by technicality of how alignment worked.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi Jun 13, 2009 21:43:33	I was reading the Eberron Campaign Setting (3.5), and I realized it may have given us more hints about the nature of the Mark of Death than we first realized. Like many, I had assumed it would have a lot of inflict wounds + assassination type spells. But reading through, I noticed that Vol introduced the idea of an undead army to Karrnath, the elves in general have a tendency to preserve themselves as undead/deathless, and Vol's mother "used her powers over death to make sure her daughter survived" (as a lich). Maybe the Mark of Death is more a Mark of Undeath. In its time, House Vol's "economic function" was in the creation of cheap warriors - an undead functional analog of the warforged? That's the story I'm going with now, at least. Maybe they also provided some services that led to the Undying Court - before the discovery and switch to Deathless rather than Undead occurred. That could lead to interesting plot hooks if some liches and vampires still survive, angered at being thrown out of the Undying Court for being negatively powered. Or if the Undying Court secretly accepts them into their number.
#2 skrapsan Jun 14, 2009 0:56:53	I seem to remember mr Baker telling us that the mark of death in his world dealt with the creation of undeath, and that it was sort of an arms race of reaching the best way of perserving the elders of the society first. And the Vol family lost, but then agiain, when you turn Undead your mark stop working. Other than that I see no reason your explanation is not a great plott hook.
#3 Aaron_Highcolor Jun 14, 2009 9:12:39	There was a trilogy of novels based upon the Mark of Death, but I can't really highly recommend it. But it's out there if you want to read it for maybe some fluff or flavor.
#4 Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi Jun 14, 2009 14:06:51	There was a trilogy of novels based upon the Mark of Death, but I can't really highly recommend it. But it's out there if you want to read it for maybe some fluff or flavor. I've read it. Personally, I enjoyed it. Then again, I read it once. It usually takes multiple reads to actually judge quality. Anyway, since Eberron novels are non-canonical, I feel free to see the author's take as just another possibility. After all, we're not supposed to ever get an official answer. Just a bunch of hypotheses. That said, I couldn't figure out what the claws of death power might be. Ghoul touch? But it seemed more deadly in the long run. However, if I add it to my theory and acknowledge that there are several possible powers to each Mark, I'll expand my claim to say that the Mark of Death offered general death and undeath related powers. Some mark bearers were best suited for the creation of undead to sell as soldiers or servants, while others were better equipped for execution, assassination, and torture.
#5 skrapsan Jun 14, 2009 23:29:16	...while others were better equipped for execution, assassination, and torture. But then again, the true marks never had any directly offensive powers... at least not in 3rd ed.
#6 angelus_obscura Jun 14, 2009 23:32:52	There are some old threads that might still be around in the archives somewhere in here that dealt with this theory. I even posited it myself a couple of years back. We basically included animate dead, create undead, create greater undead, and gentle repose or speak with the dead as the spells/powers for each 'mark tier. Creating an undead workforce, prserving and speaking with long dead ancestors were probably common before the fall of House Vol. However, channeling negative energy was probably frowned upon since the beginning and the Aerenal elves took advantage of Vol's betrayal [with the dragons] to wipe away the competition and such. Also, with new dragonmark feats giving access to new sp-like abilities (Dragonmarked 3.5 book), other more offensive powers are likely to manifest. Ie Finger of death, chill touch, vampiric touch, etc.
#7 papa_duval Jun 16, 2009 4:08:06	For my own campaign, i've always looked at the Mark of death as dealing with the difference between life and death - so i've never had it grant direct damaging powers like inflict wounds Rather i've had it provide such abilities as Undeath to death, Death Knell and Death Watch - with the syberis ability being True Resurrection (representing the ultimate ability to reach through the barrier of death to bring someone back)
#8 Captain_Kobold Jun 16, 2009 12:00:38	I've always looked at the Mark of Death as being more about the interaction of life and undeath as well. The mark might give abilities like Death Knell, Animate Dead or Speak with Dead, going up to Raise Dead or creating advanced undead for a Siberys mark. My personal view is that Erandis Vol's Mark would have had the potential to destroy someone completely though. As in, "do not go to Dolurrh, do not stay to continue to guide your descendents, do not ascend to become part of the gods/undying court". The being is torn out of existence, leaving reality and the prophecy tattered and unravelling in its wake. Its that sort of level of threat that would see the warring Dragons and Undying court combining forces to ensure that anyone with the smallest amount of the bloodline was killed.
#9 papa_duval Jun 17, 2009 3:45:27	It was my understanding that they didn't destroy the mark of death just because it existed, but because the family was involved in other dodgy practices (like inter-breeding between dragons and elves)
#10 thegreatpook Jun 17, 2009 12:49:11	Papa Duval, I love your interpretation of the Mark of Death. Thats exactly how I would use it. Imagine the trauma of having your mother die in front of you while turning you into a lich. Yikes. I can see Vol trying to find a way to reverse her undeath so she can use her mark to bring her mother back and perhaps the rest of her family as well. Ah I love the morally gray "villains" of Eberron.
#11 Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi Jun 17, 2009 20:48:48	I'm liking what I'm hearing here. Especially the Mark of Death as mastery over life and death. As for Eberron's morally gray villains - I love them too. I just never understood why Kaius was LE. Every bit of flavor text I read in the core setting paints him as a vampire trying to be good: making sure he doesn't draw too much blood from any one mistress, trying to make Karrnath a more open society (and reeling back the military dictatorship, even if he hasn't been successful there), etc. That doesn't sound evil. Maybe a harsh good, considering his practices, but evil? No.
#12 davethebrave371 Jun 17, 2009 21:49:53	I'm liking what I'm hearing here. Especially the Mark of Death as mastery over life and death. As for Eberron's morally gray villains - I love them too. I just never understood why Kaius was LE. Every bit of flavor text I read in the core setting paints him as a vampire trying to be good: making sure he doesn't draw too much blood from any one mistress, trying to make Karrnath a more open society (and reeling back the military dictatorship, even if he hasn't been successful there), etc. That doesn't sound evil. Maybe a harsh good, considering his practices, but evil? No. I think KB described it this way: while his goals are good, he is willing to authorize (and do) ruthless, evil things to accomplish those goals...and according to 3.5 D&D, it is the action, not the intent, that is Evil (see the Book of Vile Darkness). It's the same reason that manipulative (WORD I CAN'T SAY ON THE FORUMS) Aurala is NG. It's all by technicality of how alignment worked.