Undeads and Arelith

[Huschpfusch]

Can we change the way of treating undeads from "they are inherently evil" to "case to case" basis?
Because
a) New players unfamiliar with the server using their summons will get PvP bashed most likely.
b) Players trying to do any story requiring out-of-the-box thinking (e.g. Frankenstein, redemptions, family mysteries) will get PvP bashed most likely too. But most importanly c:
c) The way DD's Faerun campaign setting treats undeads is not so clear-cut.
Consider the fact that Mulhorand is basically a rip-off off Ancient Egypt, Mummy Lord Osiris - leader of the pantheon included. LE-alignment of mummies is mechanical convience to make dungeoncrawls through holysites easier. If the Art of Mummification and everything going with it were indeed inherently evil dark magic affecting the caster's soul then entire clergy of Mulhorand would be evil.
And then there is also deity Jergal, LN, whose clergy might "seek church-sponsored undeath to allow them to continue their archiving careers."
And Pale Maser, Nercomancer alignment entry (in "Tome and Blood"): Any non-good.

So... can we change the way of treating undeads from "they are inherently evil" to "case to case" basis?

[Diegovog]

But animating is considered in all of D&D/Forgotten Realms to be something utterly and absolutely evil. It even says in the Book of Vile Darkness that animating is one of the most evil things that can be done and can taint the land with negative energy.
And that is -very- clear-cut.

You're forcing a soul to come back to a decaying corpse against their will and making them obey you as a slave. It's not a grey area. Animating is one of the worst things that someone can do.

[Fionn]

It is "case to case" basis. If you pop a couple zombies up in the middle of Cordor, every person around that has a smidgen of Spellcraft knows

Code: Select all

School: necromancy
Descriptor: evil

and in that case will likely be IC unhappy with your IC choices. You may find some that are either clueless and can be calmed down with some BS (IC) story that they're constructs, or apathetic about evil necromancers. I imagine Bisik can get away with it assuming they're not already killing him for being Bisik

[-XXX-]

But animating is considered in all of D&D/Forgotten Realms to be something utterly and absolutely evil. It even says in the Book of Vile Darkness that animating is one of the most evil things that can be done and can taint the land with negative energy.
And that is -very- clear-cut.

You're forcing a soul to come back to a decaying corpse against their will and making them obey you as a slave. It's not a grey area. Animating is one of the worst things that someone can do.

Well, you cited one publication while the OP cited another. Both sourcebooks offer contradictory information which only suggests that their creators intended for the final form of a setting to be the DM's domain. We also seem to have a DM's input, so there's that.


Personally, my only gripe with this entire issue is with paladins quoting sourcebooks IC

[Baron Saturday]

As has been pointed out elsewhere, attempting to change server-wide viewpoints OOCly via the forums is a fairly futile endeavor. If any change is going to be made, it has to happen ICly, and as a result will likely be limited in scope and duration. It will also be an uphill battle, as the current Arelith surface is generally pretty good-aligned.

[Diegovog]

Saying that because Jergal accepts undead and he is a Neutral Deity, is the same as saying that everything entitled to a neutral Deity is therefore, also purely neutral, even things like "advancing death in the world".

And about the Mulhorandi, you have Nephrhys who is a CG Deity that animates and you have Osiris who can control undead. This is because of the obvious relation to the egyptians and their fixation for mummies and the eternal afterlife. And probably they can only do it because of their domains of life and death (which death isn't seen as something bad itself).

There is no sourcebook saying that animating isn't evil conflicting to the Book of Vile Darkness. If there is I'd like you to show me.

[Huschpfusch]

Well, you cited one publication while the OP cited another. Both sourcebooks offer contradictory inputs which only suggests that their creators intended for the final state of a setting to be a DM's domain. We also seem to have a DM's input, so there's that.

Well Titania's negative ruling on a change of attitude does not solve the visible sourcebook-induced contradition in Arelith though.
Cordor government still has its Osiris pilgrim NPC and bookshelves still are littered with Jergal deity books.
If animate dead is to be treated as evil deed, it looks weird to have known whorshipper of divine Mummy standing in government district undisturbed, while any PC found in a dungeon with an undead summon will receive unfavorable reaction on the spot.

[Umskiptar]

Well Titania's negative ruling on a change of attitude does not solve the visible sourcebook-induced contradition in Arelith though.

If you want a change, go ahead and make it IC. You can't change IC behavior with forum threads.

Even the newest of "noobs" know and understand that necromancy is inherently evil and corrupting.

[flower]

Because the priest of Osiris controls undeads from different reasons.

He does not summon them to be his servant and meatshields, and to kill things.

Also….


...New players unfamiliar with the server using their summons will get PvP bashed most likely….


This statement is outright a lie. Noone will instantly kill someone with undead, and just bash him. Most characters will ensure the person that they do not like undeads, and usually give time to react (unsummon and so on).
Sadly, it is a habit that people often get insulted as players or cocky IC, snapping back, being agressive in response. THAT is what people gets killed. Not their summons.

[Vrass]

Changing most people's views on undead is going to be a very difficult thing to do. My character personally has no problem with them but his is a minority view and even were undead not considered inherently evil the fact that most people use them for evil sours their reputation anyway. I generally dont use undead and when i do its only in secret where i know no one is watching and while in disguise as well. Only real place you can use them with relative safety is in the underdark.

[-XXX-]

There is no sourcebook saying that animating isn't evil conflicting to the Book of Vile Darkness. If there is I'd like you to show me.

The passages that you yourself just paraphrased do that actually (CG deity performing evil acts?). Furthermore the D&D sourcebook Libris Mortis (which isn't necessarily FR cannon, but still a really good D&D sourcebook) offers more examples - Evening Glory as an aspect of eternal love transcending death (essentially undead Sune) being one of them.

More importantly however, there isn't any evidence suggesting that the aforementioned sourcebooks (book of dakness included) are Arelith cannon. On the contrary, it has been explicitly stated numerous times before that Arelith is its own thing as far as setting is concerned. That's why citing sourcebooks isn't really all that helpful. Doing it IC is borderline OOC and cringeworthy.
Using the information included in the sourcebooks as set in stone, setting shaping axiom, and therefore a reason (excuse?) why a character's beliefs cannot be swayed no matter what actively hinders the solution suggested by Baron Saturday.


One way or another, we do have an official DM stance. Its arguable straightforwardness can leave us only wondering whether it was meant as a decision that the DMs won't intervene with the setting through an OOC policy change or whether their concern is mostly with immersion or simply that the current version of the setting is in line with their vision.
It doesn't really clarify what the setting should be however. ATM all we have is a setting shaped by players who dogmatically lean on an arbitrarily selected collection of sourcebooks that correspond with their vision.

[Queen Titania]

The best (albeit as said very difficult) route for this is to advocate and push for this IG, IC. Not OOG, OOC. The server, as I said in my original post, won't change it for you.

We're not going to force people to accomodate you OOCly, and it would be unfair for those undead users who have made a succesful story from that conflict, and overcame the odds ICly (At least for their faction, circle of friends.)

This could be said for warlocks, wild mages, and any other race/spell/class/element with darker aspects to it, whether you want to increase the wariness or tolerance.

[Huschpfusch]

The best (albeit as said very difficult) route for this is to advocate and push for this IG, IC. Not OOG, OOC. The server, as I said in my original post, won't change it for you.

We're not going to force people to accomodate you OOCly, and it would be unfair for those undead users who have made a succesful story from that conflict, and overcame the odds ICly (At least for their faction, circle of friends.)

This could be said for warlocks, wild mages, and any other race/spell/class/element with darker aspects to it, whether you want to increase the wariness or tolerance.

Okay, thanks for explaining. Going to try play normally Mulhorandi cleric noble then one day and hope for the best.
I just thought that maybe doing something like that was impossible. But if others have successfully overcome the odds I wil try to do that too with story.

[Vrass]

If you have the extra skill points try pumping up Bluff. Then when some paladin comes along and says get rid of the undead you can say "Oh thats not actually a real undead its just a simulacrum of one." Hell if you get your bluff high enough you could even lie to God and get away with it lol.

[Huschpfusch]

Because the priest of Osiris controls undeads from different reasons.

He does not summon them to be his servant and meatshields, and to kill things.

Also….


...New players unfamiliar with the server using their summons will get PvP bashed most likely….


This statement is outright a lie. Noone will instantly kill someone with undead, and just bash him. Most characters will ensure the person that they do not like undeads, and usually give time to react (unsummon and so on).
Sadly, it is a habit that people often get insulted as players or cocky IC, snapping back, being agressive in response. THAT is what people gets killed. Not their summons.

A person's duty in afterlife will be the exact same as the person's duty was in real life. A kitchen servant will be an undead kitchen servant and a warrior-bodyguard-meatshield will be an undead warrior-bodyguard-meatshield in afterlife.

As for you accusing me of lieing:
It is not a lie. It was my personal oppinion based on my personal observation and expectation of human behavior.
Definition of lie according to Longman dictionary = "to deliberately tell someone something that is not true."

[Huschpfusch]

If you have the extra skill points try pumping up Bluff. Then when some paladin comes along and says get rid of the undead you can say "Oh thats not actually a real undead its just a simulacrum of one." Hell if you get your bluff high enough you could even lie to God and get away with it lol.

How would this bluff-thing work? The other PC does not see my skillvl in bluff does he?

[Vrass]

True... im not sure how it would work on this server? Have never tried to do a skill roll here.

[TimeAdept]

There's no way to roll skills and no way to "Bluff" a PC besides disguise and actually for reals lying.

Undead are evil.

[Vrass]

Interesting, If you cant actually make use of certain skills... why have them IG?

[TimeAdept]

Because bluff runs the -disguise mechanic, along with several other uses like interacting with the settlement Exile system.

[Diegovog]

There is no sourcebook saying that animating isn't evil conflicting to the Book of Vile Darkness. If there is I'd like you to show me.

The passages that you yourself just paraphrased do that actually (CG deity performing evil acts?). Furthermore the D&D sourcebook Libris Mortis (which isn't necessarily FR cannon, but still a really good D&D sourcebook) offers more examples - Evening Glory as an aspect of eternal love transcending death (essentially undead Sune) being one of them.

More importantly however, there isn't any evidence suggesting that the aforementioned sourcebooks (book of dakness included) are Arelith cannon. On the contrary, it has been explicitly stated numerous times before that Arelith is its own thing as far as setting is concerned. That's why citing sourcebooks isn't really all that helpful. Doing it IC is borderline OOC and cringeworthy.
Using the information included in the sourcebooks as set in stone, setting shaping axiom, and therefore a reason (excuse?) why a character's beliefs cannot be swayed no matter what actively hinders the solution suggested by Baron Saturday.


One way or another, we do have an official DM stance. Its arguable straightforwardness can leave us only wondering whether it was meant as a decision that the DMs won't intervene with the setting through an OOC policy change or whether their concern is mostly with immersion or simply that the current version of the setting is in line with their vision.
It doesn't really clarify what the setting should be however. ATM all we have is a setting shaped by players who dogmatically lean on an arbitrarily selected collection of sourcebooks that correspond with their vision.

I find it really weird how some people seem to think it's okay to use sourcebook for certain information but not for other that disfavor them. Anyone who ever created content such as fixtures, books and information to leave in the server know that a lot of research in official content is required. Some people even go further and use non official content to create discussion and it's also really interesting even if people don't take it serious. But saying that you don't think it's okay for people, no paladins as you mentioned, (characters often devoted to the destruction of undead) to know what involves in animating undead? There's no mention of this knowledge being secret, it's not like a character promptly knowing how to create a phylactery from level 1, you're talking about people who literally devote their lives to understanding and fighting what is evil.

Now I took a look in that book you mentioned, Libris Mortis, and there's no mention that animating isn't evil, in fact there are numerous mentions of it being extremely evil, just look at the section "Origins of Undeath". It mentions Haunting, Atrocity Calls to Unlife (evil acts can resonate in multiple dimensions...), Negative Energy as Supportive Force (While atrocity may serve as a trigger for unlife, it is not enough to bring about a transformation of this magnitude on its own. It requires the very energy that drives dark spirits and their unquenchable thirst for life), Negative Energy as Draining Force (Some claim that undead exist concurrently on the Material Plane and the Negative Energy Plane ... The Negative Energy Plane is the heart of darkness - the hunger that devours souls), Undeath as Contagion (methods of propagating their curse) and Purposeful Reanimation (commonly known as liches)

But it doesn't matter if I list extensively why animating is eivl, will it? You're complaining that people are using source material as set in stone, despite no DM having a stance on the matter then there's nothing else I can tell you. You can try to bend as much as you want information that is generally thought as cannon and people will just eyeroll and ignore it.

[The GrumpyCat]

Nine times out of ten, summoning/raising/using undead is evil, and culturally taboo in most Goodly cultures.

There may be the one time out of ten (Mullihorand Priest, certain Jergalites, Baerlorn) when it's not evil, but those are very much outlayers and, further more, aside from OOC information, they may well still be construed as evil from an IC perspective.

To use another example - whilst some (many?) elven characters might agree that the Baelnorn is a special situation and is not inherently evil, your average Cordorian guard might well be horrified at the concept.

[flower]

Because the priest of Osiris controls undeads from different reasons.

He does not summon them to be his servant and meatshields, and to kill things.

Also….


...New players unfamiliar with the server using their summons will get PvP bashed most likely….


This statement is outright a lie. Noone will instantly kill someone with undead, and just bash him. Most characters will ensure the person that they do not like undeads, and usually give time to react (unsummon and so on).
Sadly, it is a habit that people often get insulted as players or cocky IC, snapping back, being agressive in response. THAT is what people gets killed. Not their summons.

A person's duty in afterlife will be the exact same as the person's duty was in real life. A kitchen servant will be an undead kitchen servant and a warrior-bodyguard-meatshield will be an undead warrior-bodyguard-meatshield in afterlife.

As for you accusing me of lieing:
It is not a lie. It was my personal oppinion based on my personal observation and expectation of human behavior.
Definition of lie according to Longman dictionary = "to deliberately tell someone something that is not true."

I am sorry.

I just have never seen it to happen, i just saw said necromancers acting like rulers of world and then getting splashed in one swing.

I mean they were asked to remove undeads and often their response alone would be conflicting even without undeads, even in situations when were outnumbered and or outclassed (in levels and gear). That is my own experience and observation.

[Huschpfusch]

Because the priest of Osiris controls undeads from different reasons.

He does not summon them to be his servant and meatshields, and to kill things.

Also….


...New players unfamiliar with the server using their summons will get PvP bashed most likely….


This statement is outright a lie. Noone will instantly kill someone with undead, and just bash him. Most characters will ensure the person that they do not like undeads, and usually give time to react (unsummon and so on).
Sadly, it is a habit that people often get insulted as players or cocky IC, snapping back, being agressive in response. THAT is what people gets killed. Not their summons.

A person's duty in afterlife will be the exact same as the person's duty was in real life. A kitchen servant will be an undead kitchen servant and a warrior-bodyguard-meatshield will be an undead warrior-bodyguard-meatshield in afterlife.

As for you accusing me of lieing:
It is not a lie. It was my personal oppinion based on my personal observation and expectation of human behavior.
Definition of lie according to Longman dictionary = "to deliberately tell someone something that is not true."

I am sorry.

I just have never seen it to happen, i just saw said necromancers acting like rulers of world and then getting splashed in one swing.

I mean they were asked to remove undeads and often their response alone would be conflicting even without undeads, even in situations when were outnumbered and or outclassed (in levels and gear). That is my own experience and observation.

No problem, no problem.

I will try to make my character not act like these necromancer. He will be posh nobleman so maybe a little arrogant in the beginning and trouble initially. But he will try always explain his culture - is like the 1 out of 10. Maybe it will work out.

[Regionals]

One thing about Mulhorand.. The Arelith setting is vaguely late middle ages/ early Renaissance Europe and Mulhorand is a strange and faraway land. There's trade and contact and travel of course but it's still foreign and alien to most, so their different outlook on undead isn't something that's going to change local thinking. More likely it would be spoken of in rumors and hushed whispers, like people in our world might have spoken about supposed cannibalism in some distant unfamiliar culture that's barely known.