You can probably have a lot of fun with a setting like that, and playing that character. Building the character and having them have hidden their research, at first, because of the localized stigma could be interesting, maybe they even hid the fact by taking the way of the Cleric (then taking the Grave domain) and dedicating themself to a lesser-known deity in their home area that doesn't really have an overt thing about the undead, and by taking the Grave domain they can have the valid excuse back home that it was just to make sure undead don't happen in the area while they are actually taking the path to continue their research. It could be even more character-building if they form an academic friendship with a Wizard that specializes in Necromancy and the two work on helping each other with their research. And since all Clerics, especially Grave and Death domain, gain access to a few Necromancy spells you can work in them experimenting with those spells, although that does sound more like the setup for Knowledge domain Cleric, maybe they intentionally start off as a Grave domain Cleric because of the benefits that affords them regarding the undead but then transition to Knowledge domain (for story reasons) while keeping the same deity.
Yeah, so maybe to clarify your thinking and ability to argue through these sorts of conversations, RAW is more mechanics. ... No one who sits at a table and witnesses game play where animate dead is used by "good" characters and skeletons or zombies are generated in a "good" society for some sort of utilitarian means could in the eyes of no one argue that table is playing against RAW.
I've always considered there to be just two tiers of rules in d&d. For players, all rules necessarily apply. They have a handbook. For DMs, no rules necessarily apply as they can make and break the rules. They have a guide and "any reasonable DM with any experience developing a game world" can know that they can do whatever, though optionally within the bounds of the reason that you mention, they like.
My comments on consent relate to the fact that, in any universe, there are varying possibilities that potential targets may not want this kind of thing going on with their bodies and might prefer that they "rest in peace". In many world systems a logical response to an animation of the bodies of loved ones and respected citizens could be more than a bit negative - but, hey, you develop your own worlds. Anything might be possible. Perhaps the rotting flesh of those zombies might not even need to have a stomach-wrenching smell.
Yeah, I don't know why you're trying to antagonize my thinking here. I was fairly clear much earlier in this thread at articulating the rationale for the default social norms shaping the game's flavoring of the undead. I don't know if your comment about corpse stench was some sort of effort at a clever dig, but again a DM worth their salt would have the imaginative depth to acknowledge either cultures where certain sensory input from the dead actually don't produce revulsion (it's unclear in congnitively and neurologically where revulsion response are truly instincitive or culturally imprinted/constructed, but that may not make it through your essentialist filters), or could have culture literally enriched by perfumes if not an appreciation for the scents that are part of their life (mild fun example some folks think manure just smells like sh!t ... others pick up a sweetness to it their sensory processing making association with an agricultural vitalism). So no need to try a "you do you" diss, on the contrary I just appreciate that there are a lot of ways to do things, especially in a fantastic context.
My comments on content are valid. DMs are in control and I said, "Anything might be possible. Perhaps the rotting flesh of those zombies might not even need to have a stomach-wrenching smell."
It's an issue and one that rose fairly strongly in my mind. When my dad died we decided not to have him moved for perhaps a couple of days to give us a better chance to say good-bye. By the time he was moved, the stench was already terrible but this perhaps was on the basis of his already having been a very ill man. It was nigh impossible to breathe in the room and it took my best efforts, holding my breath, to throw items such as the bedsheets out of the window. Trust me "sensory input from the dead" will produce revulsion no matter who it is or how beloved they have been. Your mention of perfumes can be relevant and it seems to me that the people who provided dedicated services of embalming can, to some extent, do an astounding job. But these are real-world considerations. In a DM's world, they can do what they want. They could even consider that, for instance, "Perhaps the rotting flesh of those zombies might not even need to have a stomach-wrenching smell." That could be a condition in an animate dead spell which, if realism was a consideration, would likely be a need.
I agree with much of OP sentiment. I've thought about playing a vengeance paladin necromancy wizard. That uses speak with dead to ask victims if they want an oprtunity for revenge & only rez'ing if the souls cool with it. I wouldn't see that as evil.
I agree with much of OP sentiment. I've thought about playing a vengeance paladin necromancy wizard. That uses speak with dead to ask victims if they want an oprtunity for revenge & only rez'ing if the souls cool with it. I wouldn't see that as evil.
I really like this idea! Nice twist on what might otherwise be an old theme.
I agree with much of OP sentiment. I've thought about playing a vengeance paladin necromancy wizard. That uses speak with dead to ask victims if they want an oprtunity for revenge & only rez'ing if the souls cool with it. I wouldn't see that as evil.
If you want to optimise it, the new Undead Warlock from Van Richten's also gets Speak with Dead!
I agree with much of OP sentiment. I've thought about playing a vengeance paladin necromancy wizard. That uses speak with dead to ask victims if they want an oprtunity for revenge & only rez'ing if the souls cool with it. I wouldn't see that as evil.
I really like this idea! Nice twist on what might otherwise be an old theme.
It ties in with my "... if you don't ask" comment from page one and may provide one route for mitigating potential community wrath.
In any context in which attempts are made to support realistic reactions among populations, the animation of dead so that peoples' corpses are turned into the puppets for necromancers would, in many circumstances, elicit a range of typically negative and potentially strong responses.
Some efforts to provide good PR, explanations and reasonings, whether based in truth or not, could certainly help.
According to The Elder Scrolls, the Khajiit had a practice of guiding souls to the Sands Behind the Stars and indenturing certain souls to atone for their sins before crossing over. It was a practice to ensure only clean souls would enter the Sands.
The reason that I typed "had" is because someone got tempted with the power over death and essentially ruined the entire practice with centuries of bad reputation. Even though the person responsible (long dead and trapped in their own "Hell" I suppose) eventually is forgiven by someone the person killed and is allowed to cross over, the reputation was unsalvageable and the practices of Necromancy remain illegal, only to be used openly by criminals.
All it takes is for one person to raise an army of the dead for people to latch onto the negative powers available with Necromancy and deem it to be powers that nobody should have.
In D&D, many an army of undead have ravaged lands, and those events are the legends that persist over those who treated the dead with respect and honor through Necromancy. The latter does not cause widespread mayhem and becomes forgotten among the ordinary life that never makes it into history journals.
Allowance of Necromancy would be limited to societies with standards of what is ethical or illegal to their society.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
According to The Elder Scrolls, the Khajiit had a practice of guiding souls to the Sands Behind the Stars and indenturing certain souls to atone for their sins before crossing over. It was a practice to ensure only clean souls would enter the Sands.
The reason that I typed "had" is because someone got tempted with the power over death and essentially ruined the entire practice with centuries of bad reputation. Even though the person responsible (long dead and trapped in their own "Hell" I suppose) eventually is forgiven by someone the person killed and is allowed to cross over, the reputation was unsalvageable and the practices of Necromancy remain illegal, only to be used openly by criminals.
All it takes is for one person to raise an army of the dead for people to latch onto the negative powers available with Necromancy and deem it to be powers that nobody should have.
In D&D, many an army of undead have ravaged lands, and those events are the legends that persist over those who treated the dead with respect and honor through Necromancy. The latter does not cause widespread mayhem and becomes forgotten among the ordinary life that never makes it into history journals.
Allowance of Necromancy would be limited to societies with standards of what is ethical or illegal to their society.
It is a sad but true fact that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Legends and lore are the same way. Everyone talks about how the great adventurer scaled the mountain and slew the whatever...but nobody talks about the pile of bones behind the mountain of the ones who failed because they never got a song or a story.
The same would go for Undead or any other thing that has three centuries or more of 'and then the Lich propelled his forces into the city' but nobody to write about 'my pair of Zombies who held the door so we could escape.'
If undead are just machines, what makes them more narratively satisfying for that role than constructs?
Killer robot stories are more a sci-fi thing but could be pretty easily adapted to D&D, if you wanted
Coming up with a setting in which the undead are viewed neutrally but constructs are considered morally repugnant as a 'mockery of natural life' wouldn't be hard either
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If undead are just machines, what makes them more narratively satisfying for that role than constructs?
I can't speak for anyone else obviously, but it seems that the wrongness of undeath is part of what makes them cool in the first place.
Having zombies and skeletons as unthinking machines doesn't make all undead so.
Absolutely (on both) but, in many contexts, constructs don't need to be unthinking machines either.
I think both could potentially and optionally have baggage. For instance, a construct may look at the personal sensitivities that they've never had but that others have and have envy at any level of extreme. An undead, may have a different range of personal sensitivities, if any, that they may know that they used to have, and potentially have similar levels of envy but grounded with a different context.
Zombies and skeletons may not be unthinking machines and perhaps, to any range of possibilities, they might not be unfeeling machines either.
How might a part of you react if it was awakened as flesh rotting zombie or a bone-rattling skeleton? There may or may not be a difference from a construct that was booted anew to discover the world.
The undead have a form of being risen from the dead and yet, in some and varying ways, they still fall short of being quite alive. How would they handle that? In some worlds, the undead may do things like drink blood perhaps to take benefits of life yet, in many cases, a different interpretation of twilight might apply.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You can probably have a lot of fun with a setting like that, and playing that character. Building the character and having them have hidden their research, at first, because of the localized stigma could be interesting, maybe they even hid the fact by taking the way of the Cleric (then taking the Grave domain) and dedicating themself to a lesser-known deity in their home area that doesn't really have an overt thing about the undead, and by taking the Grave domain they can have the valid excuse back home that it was just to make sure undead don't happen in the area while they are actually taking the path to continue their research. It could be even more character-building if they form an academic friendship with a Wizard that specializes in Necromancy and the two work on helping each other with their research. And since all Clerics, especially Grave and Death domain, gain access to a few Necromancy spells you can work in them experimenting with those spells, although that does sound more like the setup for Knowledge domain Cleric, maybe they intentionally start off as a Grave domain Cleric because of the benefits that affords them regarding the undead but then transition to Knowledge domain (for story reasons) while keeping the same deity.
I've always considered there to be just two tiers of rules in d&d.
For players, all rules necessarily apply. They have a handbook.
For DMs, no rules necessarily apply as they can make and break the rules. They have a guide and "any reasonable DM with any experience developing a game world" can know that they can do whatever, though optionally within the bounds of the reason that you mention, they like.
My comments on content are valid. DMs are in control and I said, "Anything might be possible. Perhaps the rotting flesh of those zombies might not even need to have a stomach-wrenching smell."
It's an issue and one that rose fairly strongly in my mind. When my dad died we decided not to have him moved for perhaps a couple of days to give us a better chance to say good-bye. By the time he was moved, the stench was already terrible but this perhaps was on the basis of his already having been a very ill man. It was nigh impossible to breathe in the room and it took my best efforts, holding my breath, to throw items such as the bedsheets out of the window. Trust me "sensory input from the dead" will produce revulsion no matter who it is or how beloved they have been. Your mention of perfumes can be relevant and it seems to me that the people who provided dedicated services of embalming can, to some extent, do an astounding job. But these are real-world considerations. In a DM's world, they can do what they want. They could even consider that, for instance, "Perhaps the rotting flesh of those zombies might not even need to have a stomach-wrenching smell." That could be a condition in an animate dead spell which, if realism was a consideration, would likely be a need.
I agree with much of OP sentiment. I've thought about playing a vengeance paladin necromancy wizard. That uses speak with dead to ask victims if they want an oprtunity for revenge & only rez'ing if the souls cool with it. I wouldn't see that as evil.
I really like this idea! Nice twist on what might otherwise be an old theme.
If you want to optimise it, the new Undead Warlock from Van Richten's also gets Speak with Dead!
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
It ties in with my "... if you don't ask" comment from page one and may provide one route for mitigating potential community wrath.
In any context in which attempts are made to support realistic reactions among populations, the animation of dead so that peoples' corpses are turned into the puppets for necromancers would, in many circumstances, elicit a range of typically negative and potentially strong responses.
Some efforts to provide good PR, explanations and reasonings, whether based in truth or not, could certainly help.
According to The Elder Scrolls, the Khajiit had a practice of guiding souls to the Sands Behind the Stars and indenturing certain souls to atone for their sins before crossing over. It was a practice to ensure only clean souls would enter the Sands.
The reason that I typed "had" is because someone got tempted with the power over death and essentially ruined the entire practice with centuries of bad reputation. Even though the person responsible (long dead and trapped in their own "Hell" I suppose) eventually is forgiven by someone the person killed and is allowed to cross over, the reputation was unsalvageable and the practices of Necromancy remain illegal, only to be used openly by criminals.
All it takes is for one person to raise an army of the dead for people to latch onto the negative powers available with Necromancy and deem it to be powers that nobody should have.
In D&D, many an army of undead have ravaged lands, and those events are the legends that persist over those who treated the dead with respect and honor through Necromancy. The latter does not cause widespread mayhem and becomes forgotten among the ordinary life that never makes it into history journals.
Allowance of Necromancy would be limited to societies with standards of what is ethical or illegal to their society.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
It is a sad but true fact that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Legends and lore are the same way. Everyone talks about how the great adventurer scaled the mountain and slew the whatever...but nobody talks about the pile of bones behind the mountain of the ones who failed because they never got a song or a story.
The same would go for Undead or any other thing that has three centuries or more of 'and then the Lich propelled his forces into the city' but nobody to write about 'my pair of Zombies who held the door so we could escape.'
If undead are just machines, what makes them more narratively satisfying for that role than constructs?
I can't speak for anyone else obviously, but it seems that the wrongness of undeath is part of what makes them cool in the first place.
Killer robot stories are more a sci-fi thing but could be pretty easily adapted to D&D, if you wanted
Coming up with a setting in which the undead are viewed neutrally but constructs are considered morally repugnant as a 'mockery of natural life' wouldn't be hard either
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Having zombies and skeletons as unthinking machines doesn't make all undead so.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Absolutely (on both) but, in many contexts, constructs don't need to be unthinking machines either.
I think both could potentially and optionally have baggage.
For instance, a construct may look at the personal sensitivities that they've never had but that others have and have envy at any level of extreme.
An undead, may have a different range of personal sensitivities, if any, that they may know that they used to have, and potentially have similar levels of envy but grounded with a different context.
Zombies and skeletons may not be unthinking machines and perhaps, to any range of possibilities, they might not be unfeeling machines either.
How might a part of you react if it was awakened as flesh rotting zombie or a bone-rattling skeleton? There may or may not be a difference from a construct that was booted anew to discover the world.
The undead have a form of being risen from the dead and yet, in some and varying ways, they still fall short of being quite alive. How would they handle that? In some worlds, the undead may do things like drink blood perhaps to take benefits of life yet, in many cases, a different interpretation of twilight might apply.