Undead in BRCS [Archive] - Birthright.net

AndrewTall

11-27-2007, 09:43 PM

The main inhibiting factor is that people lose their bloodline when they die, and you need a bloodline to hold source holdings and gain RP. The Magian bends this with comments about having returned to life - I think the argument is that he, as one of the Lost, never quite died.

Similarly the Vampire is not an actual undead but an awnsheghlien with similar physical characteristics. The comments on the Banshegh clearly continue Ken's crusade against cute NPC's who just so happen to have the blood of Azrai (and so get labelled awnies by jealous opponents) following his vile slander of the Siren a year or so ago. :p

Another possibility is awnmebhaighl - the seeming. Drawing on the magic of the Shadow World rather than that of Cerilia might by ok for an undead given the links between undead and the shadow world generally.

Alternatively have the undead be brought back to a shadowed form of life via usurpation - the taint of Azrai 'corrupting them' back to a semblance of life to allow it to continue to exist. The 'not quite undead' would then also have a powerful incentive to usurp more scions - kill enough and possibly live again!

Rowan

11-28-2007, 05:06 AM

A bloodline implies that it is either carried in the blood or merely that it is inherent to one's being and transmitted generationally.

If the divine energy were truly bound to blood, the blood of a living scion could provide some interesting magical properties.

I think the divine energy is an essence that permeates the mortal soul. In the act of procreation, it is passed on--divine energy is most characterized by creation, so the generation of a child allows a bloodline to grow and spread.

If the soul departs the body (in death), the divine essence is released as the spirit is ripped from the body. That's how bloodtheft and loss of the bloodline occurs.

However, sentient undead creatures keep their souls bound to their bodies, animating them. I would say that Azrai's essence in his bloodlines can be preserved through the process into undeath, but not that of any of the other gods. However, undead awnsheghlien cannot spawn progeny.

I think awnmebhaigl is another good option, but I resist the strong implications I see through most of BRnet to cast the Seeming as an entirely corrupted source of power. There are still supposed to be Faerie Realms--as well as the domains of the gods--that persist in untainted Seeming. This power would simply be the power of True Illusion, or Creation (except that all creation in the Faerie Realm is temporary and changeable, unlike in Aebrynis). Imagine its wielders able to truly shape the environment, bending it to their will and wish, contested only by the contesting influences of others or by their own limitations. The chaotic Fae would leave highly impermanent changes, while a more focused master of Seeming, like the gods, the Lost, or perhaps spectral scions or certain undead and many outsiders, could maintain more stable realities bent to their desires.

stv2brown1988

11-28-2007, 06:39 AM

Another possibility is awnmebhaighl - the seeming. Drawing on the magic of the Shadow World rather than that of Cerilia might by ok for an undead given the links between undead and the shadow world generally.

I like this idea. Keep the source ratings the same for provinces but the actual source holding and the immediate area surrounding it are corrupted, twisted reflections of pristine wilderness. Like misshapen, unhealthy trees/plants or springs of stagnant, sulphuric water bubbling up to the surface. These areas resist a Druid's ability to restore (protected as a normal source) and force druids to work with spellcasters to return these areas to normal (contest actions/rule source).

Steve

RaspK_FOG

11-28-2007, 08:10 AM

A bloodline implies that it is either carried in the blood or merely that it is inherent to one's being and transmitted generationally.

If the divine energy were truly bound to blood, the blood of a living scion could provide some interesting magical properties.

I think the divine energy is an essence that permeates the mortal soul. In the act of procreation, it is passed on--divine energy is most characterized by creation, so the generation of a child allows a bloodline to grow and spread.

If the soul departs the body (in death), the divine essence is released as the spirit is ripped from the body. That's how bloodtheft and loss of the bloodline occurs.

However, sentient undead creatures keep their souls bound to their bodies, animating them. I would say that Azrai's essence in his bloodlines can be preserved through the process into undeath, but not that of any of the other gods. However, undead awnsheghlien cannot spawn progeny.

I think you are confusing your mythologies: just as in most real life mythologies there is no place for a shaman sorcerer or the like (which is half the reason for the olden D&D themes were you could only have one class, period), so does in Cerilia the spilling of the blood of the scion confer the theme of obtaining one's power; likewise, after one's death, one loses the right of the divine bloodlines - there is no choice on the matter, and the soul has little bearing on the matter. This is half the reason why resurrection is a touchy subject when it comes to the nobility: the combined issues of the lost bloodline and the line of inheritance makes things more complicated than need be, so most priests do not resurrect nobles with heirs, even if they can.

Also note here that there is a lot of philosophical and technical debate in-and-out-of -game of the matter of whether the soul still inhabits the undead body, or if it is a perverse life force that deals only with the intellect as the soul awaits whatever is going to happen to it now or later on, still dictated by each individual thesis...

The greatest example that supports the above are the events described in the novel "The Falcon and The Wolf."

irdeggman

11-28-2007, 11:11 AM

Just to make it clear.

Dying does not automatically remove someone's bloodline, it never did.

Dying does, however, automatically remove one's connection to all holdings.

Bloodtheft (specifically through using tighmaevril) will remove a bloodline.

Investiture can remove a bloodline.

So if one has designated an heir and done the investiture rites ahead of time, when that regent dies everything is transferred accordingly.

Now as far as preserving one's bloodline in case of something catastrophic.

The BRCS has the "blood" property for weapons (chapter 8).

The Book of Regency had the sword of blood that did the same thing.

Then there is always the tighmaevril weapons way.

Then all you have to do is "reclaim" your regency. Forced investiture comes to mind.

geeman

11-28-2007, 01:10 PM

At 11:43 AM 11/27/2007, stv2brown1988 wrote:

>Can Undead control/access sources?
>
>Can they cast Realm Spells?
>
>Can Undead have a bloodline?
>
>Can they acquire one after they become Undead via ursurpation (sp?)?
>
>----------
>
>I wanted to know if a Lich could be an arch-rival for a PC source regent.

As Andrew noted, the problem is having undead with a
bloodline. There are arguments to be made either way.

Though we have no standard D&D undead in BR with a bloodline, and
there are lots of undead, there`s nothing I can see in any of the
published materials to suggest an undead creature could definitively
NOT have a bloodline. There could be made an argument that certain
undead (particularly incorporeal ones) cannot have a bloodline if
they don`t have blood, a heart or even a body in the traditional
sense. It`d be hard to rationalize very well a simply animated
undead gaining a bloodline. There could very easily be an awnshegh
called The Skeleton, but I don`t think it`d be particularly elegant
for that character to come into existence because of a strange
usurpation incident involving a typical D&D animated
skeleton. Rather, a scion might take on skeletal qualities based on
his transformation into his thematic awnshegh transformation.

That said, because bloodline vanishes at death, an undead creature is
going to have to gain one at some point after becoming undead. I
understand things are a little different in the 3e BRCS when it comes
to usurpation but in the original materials there was no game
mechanical way for commoners to gain a bloodline through that method,
though there were plenty of examples in the published materials of
such a thing happening, so that`s the most likely
possibility. However, there are several methods to gain a bloodline,
and one of the advantages that the DM has in using an undead villain
is that the immortal nature of the undead means it could have
acquired that bloodline at any point in the past. One of the ways
bloodline apparently happened outside the rules is in non-traditional
methods of usurpation. Drinking the blood, eating the body, somehow
stealing the physical form of a scion, etc. Some of those methods
might be particularly appropriate for certain types of undead. In
and of itself, that`s probably the best argument against undead with
a bloodline. If it`s possible why hasn`t it happened already? In
fact, why hasn`t it happened LOTS. With all the blood drinking and
body eating that happens with such undead as vampires, ghouls and
ghasts should usurpation have occurred more often if it can happen
that way at all?

There are a few BR specific undead and ehrsheghlien (I`m thinking of
the Spectral Scion and Aurichlacht/the Golden Light) whose existence
hints that a traditional corporeal body isn`t all that big a deal
when it comes to bloodline. When it boils right down to it, one of
the functions of bloodline is as an "X Factor" where anything and
everything is possible.

However, if one rules that it is possible, I would be still careful
with undead scions. For one thing, we already have awnsheghlien who
represent several of the major undead types, and those characters are
already set up to be long-term opponents, so making an undead scion
could easily step on the role of an existing (one might argue
thematically more important) BR character. When it comes to liches,
for instance, we already have powerful regents in the Magian and
Siebharrin "the Lich" from Tuarhieval/Gorgon`s Crown, so a third lich
character should be demonstrably different from either of those
characters in order to make him/er distinct from those existing
NPCs. If you`re going to do such a thing, consider using an actual
awnshegh in that role, or inventing a whole new take on the awnsheghlien theme.

Gary

RaspK_FOG

11-28-2007, 03:14 PM

Hm... Irdeggman is correct; then how did the young prince receive his birthright (pun intented): no prior ceremony was held?

irdeggman

11-28-2007, 04:18 PM

That said, because bloodline vanishes at deathGary

This is a false statement.

Never was true in 2nd ed (not withstanding house rules) either.

It says that a regent's connection to his holdings is broken at death, not that his bloodline vanishes.

The spectral scions were the result of "bloodtheft" which is something different.

irdeggman

11-28-2007, 04:29 PM

stv2brown1988

11-28-2007, 04:58 PM

Book of Priestcraft pg 83 “Regent death and resurrection”

since he retains his bloodline[/b] (unless he willingly gave it away be designation before his death). Unless he builds a new domain, he is treated as a scion and not a regent.”

So, it is possible for a raised undead to retain his bloodline? Would the undead be subject to bloodline theft by a PC?

What of allowing undead PCs via rules from the Libris Mortis?

geeman

11-28-2007, 07:31 PM

At 08:29 AM 11/28/2007, irdeggman wrote:

>Book of Priestcraft pg 83 "Regent death and resurrection"
>
>"When a regent character dies, the domain power he holds immediately
>transfers to his heir, whether the heir is designated, undesignated,
>or chosen on the spot by the land. The regent`s bloodline may also
>be transferred if he has designated an heir to receive it. Should
>the regent be returned to life at some later time by the use of
>magic, the former regent does not regain his lost domain; it remains
>in the hands of his successor. His death severed the link between
>land and king, and from that point forward, he can never be invested
>as the ruler of his former domain again, since the land will refuse
>him. The resurrected character could possible win a new domain
>elsewhere in Cerilia, since he retains his bloodline (unless he
>willingly gave it away be designation before his death). Unless he
>builds a new domain, he is treated as a scion and not a regent."

I stand corrected.

Gary

geeman

11-28-2007, 07:45 PM

At 08:58 AM 11/28/2007, stv2brown1988 wrote:

>So, it is possible for a raised undead to retain his
>bloodline? Would the undead be subject to bloodline theft by a PC?

Regardless of whether a scion retains his bloodline when raised from
the dead, whether a character does or not when raised as an undead is
still a matter of interpretation. Does a creature who is raised as
an undead still have the divine bloodline of its previous human
form. A human being "brought back" is demonstrably different from
one "raised as undead" and there are matters having to do with how
one views the undead as being animated, having a "soul" in the sense
that humans do, if they are "spirited" in some other, non-permanent
way, or if they are simply "empowered" by a negative energy that
mimics any of those processes.

One could go any which way with such interpretations and allow an
undead scion or not. The best argument IMO to oppose the concept is
that there aren`t any extant or historical undead scions in the
existing material and if it were possible then it surely would have
happened at some point in the past 1,500 years, especially
considering the immortal nature of those characters. The best BR
specific campaign theme argument is simply that one should be careful
"mixing genres" within the setting. That is, there are undead themes
and there are bloodline based themes, and it makes a certain sense to
keep them separate in order to avoid diffusing the campaign themes.

Gary

kgauck

11-28-2007, 08:23 PM

Its not a clear case, but the spectral scion, who haunts in regards to those who stole his bloodline, suggest the spectre would expect to have his bloodline. The again, there might be horse scions who haunt in regards to the loss of their horse as well. My suspicion is that bloodline transcends death.

Sinister

11-28-2007, 09:18 PM

Book of Priestcraft pg 83 “Regent death and resurrection”

“When a regent character dies, the domain power he holds immediately transfers to his heir, whether the heir is designated, undesignated, or chosen on the spot by the land. The regent’s bloodline may also be transferred if he has designated an heir to receive it. Should the regent be returned to life at some later time by the use of magic, the former regent does not regain his lost domain; it remains in the hands of his successor. His death severed the link between land and king, and from that point forward, he can never be invested as the ruler of his former domain again, since the land will refuse him. The resurrected character could possible win a new domain elsewhere in Cerilia, since he retains his bloodline (unless he willingly gave it away be designation before his death). Unless he builds a new domain, he is treated as a scion and not a regent.”

This imo is dumb. So what this is saying is that the local land refuses you but you can go somewhere else and rule?

what if I die and come back and change from a priest to a fighter? Can I hold law holdings and become regent in those lands that refuse me as a priest? Can I overthrow my former theocracy and rule it as a dukedom?

I'm just going to say you die, your bloodline is done. Keeps people from wanting to raise the dead anyhoo.

irdeggman

11-28-2007, 10:01 PM

This imo is dumb. So what this is saying is that the local land refuses you but you can go somewhere else and rule?

what if I die and come back and change from a priest to a fighter? Can I hold law holdings and become regent in those lands that refuse me as a priest? Can I overthrow my former theocracy and rule it as a dukedom?

I'm just going to say you die, your bloodline is done. Keeps people from wanting to raise the dead anyhoo.

I am not going to disagree with the "refuse" and "never" get it back comment.

I too think this is not good or well though out (but it was what was published in 2nd ed).

Personally I think that the tie is immediately broken - but that the scion must once again "earn" his regency back.

All I was doing was pointing out that the act of dying in and of itself did not remove a scion's bloodline in any edition of BR.

irdeggman

11-28-2007, 10:08 PM

geeman

11-28-2007, 10:18 PM

At 01:18 PM 11/28/2007, Sinister wrote:

>This imo is dumb. So what this is saying is that the local land
>refuses you but you can go somewhere else and rule?

Like a lot of 2e BR materials it does open up a can of
worms.... It`s most likely a way to dealing with the problem of a
resurrected regent dealing with his heir, and the specifics of that
rational are just not addressed. Personally, I think it would be
better characterized as the possession of a deceased regent`s domain
as having "moved on" rather than the domain itself actually rejecting
that regent. If the heir chose to simply return the realm there is
the appropriate investiture possibility. The regent is the focus of
the domain`s continuity, so when the focus is located on another
point the previous regent is simply "out of the loop" not actually
rejected per se.

>what if I die and come back and change from a priest to a
>fighter? Can I hold law holdings and become regent in those lands
>that refuse me as a priest? Can I overthrow my former theocracy and
>rule it as a dukedom?

How do you mean come back changed from a priest to a
fighter? Reincarnated as opposed to raised?

Gary

irdeggman

11-28-2007, 10:19 PM

So, it is possible for a raised undead to retain his bloodline? Would the undead be subject to bloodline theft by a PC?

What of allowing undead PCs via rules from the Libris Mortis?

Gary brings up some good points to consider when attempting to apply this.

I would maintain that you can perform bloodtheft on any creature with a bloodline. There is no reason not to apply this one, since there is nothing that says any blooded creature is treated differently in this regard.

Personnally, based on the spectral scion issue - I would go with undead can have bloodlines and if raised (either as an undead or a living creature) you would maintain your bloodline - unless something happened to remove it in some other manner (Investiture, bloodltheft, etc.)

Now with respect to the BRCS and how it handles the "explosion" issue. I would rule that you would come back with a 0 blood score (if it was absorbed by surrounding creatures - what goes to the land (i.e., is not absorbed) comes back to you if raised), but still have the same strength and derivation as before.

geeman

11-28-2007, 10:45 PM

At 02:08 PM 11/28/2007, irdeggman wrote:

>Be careful about bring in the issue of "souls" as a point of
>reference for whether or not a creature should have a bloodline.
>
>In 2nd ed there was a big issue about elves and souls (this was a
>lot of the reasoning in why it was more difficult to ressurrect them
>in overall D&D).
>
>There are also a fair amount of blooded animals referenced. As far
>as I know no one is assuming an animal has a "soul" in this regard.
>
>But the advise to be careful in how applying such a view point is
>very legitimate.

I long ago ruled that the Sidhe have "spirits" and other races have
"souls" in BR for my own campaigns, and that ruling has never
seriously been an issue despite some rather elaborate extrapolation
of what it means to the respective characters after death. In this
case, I think differentiating between living and undead is
sufficient. The point about elves having a "spirit" has been brought
up in relation to BR elves in the past, but it hasn`t been related to
whether they could have a bloodline or not since that issue is
definitively not at issue given the number of them. That the undead
do not have a "soul" or a "spirit" in the sense that the living do,
however, works as a pretty good explanation for why there are no
undead scions in any of the published materials. The NPCs who are
"undead" and blooded (usually awnsheghlien) have origins that
illustrate they are still "living" beings in the same way that
animals, elves and mortals are, so whatever it is that the living
beings have that undead do not is what allows a character to have a bloodline.

Otherwise, if one looks at the published materials, one really has to
wonder why there are no undead scions. No scion ever died in the
last 1,500 years of the setting and returned as a ghoul, ghast,
shadow, wraith, specter, (non-awnshegh) banshee? Those are just the
ones listed in the Rulebook. Other kinds of undead are possible in
BR, like liches or vampires, yet I can think of not one standard D&D
undead scion. Because the undead don`t age such a character would
still be around (barring, of course, being killed outright.) So it
seems pretty unlikely for there to be undead scions if it is normally possible.

In fact, the more I think on it, the more problems I see with the
idea of allowing undead scions. Though I don`t think anyone would
quibble with the difference between being animated undead and undead
in the sense of other, more powerful undead, it`d be pretty
problematic if a scion could be simply animated as a zombie or
skeleton and retain his bloodline. Granted, the big problem with
that example is that it would make the undead subservient to the
animating mage/priest, but there are similar concepts in other undead
types since most can be dominated in one way or another, so an undead
scion could be enthralled by another undead "master" or magic
wielding character.

In BR, of course, we also have an issue with the undead populations
of the Shadow World that mirrors the world of light. If undead were
capable of having a bloodline wouldn`t some undead in the SW have
attained a bloodline at some point and created the SW equivalent of a
domain with the populace made up entirely of undead creatures in a
way that parallels Cerilia? Honestly, I like the idea of the SW
mimicking the world of light in this way--there`s definitely a cool
quality to all the BR regents represented by the equivalents as
various undead types--but one would think it`d be mentioned in such a
form at some point in the existing materials if it were possible.

Gary

Sorontar

11-28-2007, 11:48 PM

How about the following:

A regent dies, without having designated an heir.
His regency connection to his holdings is dissolved, and given to the land or by the land to someone else.
His bloodline stays with the body as long as the body stays intact.
If the body is burnt, the bloodline is lost.
If the body is buried, the bloodline is gradually lost.
If the body is resurrected, it maintains whatever bloodline it had before the resurrection.
If the body is reincarnated, it gets no bloodline except any given to the new body.
If the body is made into an undead for some reason, treat it like resurrection.

Bloodtheft can be performed on any creature that has a bloodline. Stabbing the heart is the obvious method for humanoids, but for undead and animals, it might be a little more awkward to work out.

Bloodtheft cannot be performed on a dead body. The body must be "living" or sentient.

Sorontar

Thelandrin

11-29-2007, 10:40 AM

Those are nice ideas, but I would suggest clarifying "made into undead" to be "made into sentient undead". After all, if the corpse is returned as a zombie or skeleton (or perhaps even a ghoul), then they should still be considered dead. The same goes for incorporeal undead - they should be assumed to have a destroyed body.

kgauck

11-29-2007, 03:08 PM

Incorporeal undead might well be corporeal in the Shadow World.

ConjurerDragon

11-29-2007, 04:30 PM

Gary schrieb:
> At 01:18 PM 11/28/2007, Sinister wrote:
>
>> This imo is dumb. So what this is saying is that the local land
>> refuses you but you can go somewhere else and rule?
>
> Like a lot of 2e BR materials it does open up a can of worms.... It`s
> most likely a way to dealing with the problem of a resurrected regent
> dealing with his heir, and the specifics of that rational are just not
> addressed. Personally, I think it would be better characterized as
> the possession of a deceased regent`s domain as having "moved on"
> rather than the domain itself actually rejecting that regent. If the
> heir chose to simply return the realm there is the appropriate
> investiture possibility. The regent is the focus of the domain`s
> continuity, so when the focus is located on another point the previous
> regent is simply "out of the loop" not actually rejected per se.
>
The 2E can of worms was not that large. One has to remember that the 2E
material assumed only a small percentage of characters with higher
levels in the population and all priests/clerics in Birthright were
specialty priests and only a handful of gods granted the major healing
sphere which included to raise the dead - and those few highlevel
clerics who followed the few gods granting the major healing sphere
would refuse to do so on a regular basis.

geeman

11-29-2007, 05:45 PM

At 02:40 AM 11/29/2007, you wrote:

>Those are nice ideas, but I would suggest clarifying "made into
>undead" to be "made into sentient undead". After all, if the corpse
>is returned as a zombie or skeleton (or perhaps even a ghoul), then
>they should still be considered dead. The same goes for incorporeal
>undead - they should be assumed to have a destroyed body.

When it comes to even sentient undead I think there should be
limitations. Note, for example, the text in the 3.5 MM under ghouls
that notes that a character who becomes a ghoul as a result of Ghoul
Fever "retains none of the abilities it possessed in life." That
pretty much reads to me like a scion who becomes a ghoul won`t have a
bloodline any more. Ghasts would work the same way.

Regardless of how ghouls and ghasts are treated, I still think
there`s a real problem in allowing undead scions based on any of the
undead types that can "create spawn." For example, when wights are
created are under the control of the wight who killed their mortal
body, and that lasts until death. In BR giving an unblooded creature
that kind of control over a scion is problematic since they could
order their slaves to go out and create domains, commit bloodtheft,
whatever. The same problem exists for shadows, vampires and
spectres. Why aren`t there such existing undead in the BR setting
maybe controlled by some "commoner" undead?

Gary

kgauck

11-29-2007, 07:38 PM

Undead seem to be more fitting in the Shadow World, where as other have mentioned, they might naturally rule domains. For existing undead types, they can involve special circumstances, or have the condition of being, say a lich, but he's not a lich. To me this feels like a bit of deux ex machina. The DM wants a blooded lich, but calls him by another name, say, the Lost, to avoid the reproducability of a blooded lich character.

I think its easier to impose the more familiar undead limits firmly. For example, how much time does the Magian or Vampire spend in the daylight world compared to the Shadow World? Running a domain from across the evenaescence might be difficult without being impossible. A lot of solutions can be in play here. Such characters might attempt to weaken the barrier between worlds to reduce penalties to domain actions, and this can drain time, effort, and resources. In their own "haunted" domains, they might be terribly powerful and a daylight regent attempting to perform actions might have penalties, but these characters can't effectively expand swiftly because of the difficulties of ruling across the barrier.

Normally the expanation of why undead don't come to dominate the world concerns their natural vulnerabilities. Play that up rather than an all out ban, unless you don't like undead to begin with. If the campaign's one lich and vampire are basically unique, then problem solved.

Characters like undead tend to be brittle. To get all their cool powers, they end up with an ECL that makes them especially vulnerable to attacks where they don't have supernatural defenses.

So, in the final analysis, I don't think they are game breaking, if you play up the liabilities and don't allow easy fixes to those.

geeman

11-29-2007, 09:16 PM

At 11:38 AM 11/29/2007, kgauck wrote:

>Characters like undead tend to be brittle. To get all their cool
>powers, they end up with an ECL that makes them especially
>vulnerable to attacks where they don`t have supernatural defenses.

The balance of undead powers versus vulnerabilities isn`t really what
I see as the problem for BR. After all, bloodline itself creates its
own sorts of powers and vulnerabilities, and the ahn/ehrsheghlien
transformation works in a similar fashion.

The problem is the enslavement created by the "create spawn" function
that several undead have. BR has a system of LTs/cohorts and
vassalage. The undead ability to create absolutely subservient
minions takes that process to another level, which could be
problematical. If the conclusion of a conflict between two scions is
not bloodtheft, but the abject enslavement of the defeated scion then
we`re into a whole different process at the domain level since that
defeated scion can become a kind of "super vassal" to the victor
because he`ll never switch sides or otherwise contradict his
"master." I`m very leery of anything that is as absolute as that
interacting with the domain level of play.

Gary

AndrewTall

11-29-2007, 10:14 PM

I spawn, therefore I have 3 more actions a season...
I'm figuring that the spawn may be less of an issue than people fear - I note that a vassal regent (source aside) must command the loyalty of a large body of people and be able to interact effectively with them, which requires constant judgment calls and modifications to plans which requires either great autonomy or immediate access and control - an undead could be shadow behind the throne easily, but would not have time to effectively manage a dozen thrones at once!

Bloodline and death
In terms of bloodline and death, Bloodspawn talks about the awnsheghlien that died and now serve the Cold Rider - they lost half their bloodline on death (the maximum loss possible via bloodsilver) and the rest remained available to the spirit version of the awnie in the shadow world. I'd say that the bloodline of Azrai will find some way - any way - to continue and have some intriguing game impacts in terms of the land's choice (who sleeps easily the night the king's murderer is hanged?)

Resurrection
I shy away from any kind of resurrection magic other than death's door and similar healing so avoid some of the problems mentioned, generally though I'd say that any resurrection is so powerful and personal an intervention of a deity that the character should rise with the bloodline of the raising deity to some degree - which would also make priests wary of casting it. Being brutal I rule that clones and the like have no bloodline...

Awnmebhaighl
In terms of awnmebhaighl I'd accept the earlier point, the shadow world may dominate the spirit world but the game is enriched by the survival - at least in parts - by the spirit world. That said I'd be just as happy to see effects on Cerilia from close ties to the spirit world awnmebhaighl as I would for the shadow world - the PC regent who invades the Sielwode may regret their assumption that the woods resources are merely of the mortal world!

geeman

11-29-2007, 10:45 PM

kgauck

11-29-2007, 10:55 PM

If one assumes that bloodlines do more than give you a palate of powers, but influence your personality and character, then the blooded undead spawn is not just driven by their master, but by their bloodline as well.

Perhaps, it is known to those who would rise to undead regency that its dangerous and undesireable to have spawn of any bloodline but Azrai (or your own, assuming some other derivation) because their is always another voice in the spirit of your minion and it has a disturbing likelihood of manifetsing during the most critical moments.

This would require an undead lord to first corrupt the scion and get him dark and evil and Azrai tainted before spawning him.

Then again, maybe spawning doesn't work on the blooded for the same reason, internal conflict shuts down the intelligence of the being and you end up with a disanimated undead whose spirit is locked in an eternal spiritual grapple with the negative life force that animates the creature.

Sorontar

11-29-2007, 11:06 PM

Andrew talks about resurrections of scions coming back with the bloodlines of the deity that rose them. The problem with that is that the new gods don't have bloodlines. The bloodlines come from the old deities.

I don't know much about the spawning problem you are talking about but I gather that you are suggesting that the spawns will get the originator's bloodline? How about ruling that if any undead spawns then it divides its bloodline score between the spawns and itself. For each spawn, there is a chance (dice roll) that the bloodline won't stick and the bloodline and the bloodline score is lost to the earth. If the blooded spawns can be absorbed back into the originator, then the bloodline score will return with them. If the spawn's bloodline has changed since it was created then the normal rules apply for deciding which bloodline would subsequently dominate in the originator.

Also, I would rule that undead can't be invested or designate heirs. The land won't let if happen (except in Shadow World). They have to be killed with the bloodline or steal it from a blooded creature.

Sorontar

irdeggman

11-30-2007, 10:44 AM

At 02:14 PM 11/29/2007, AndrewTall wrote:

>I`m figuring that the spawn may be less of an issue than people fear
>- I note that a vassal regent (source aside) must command the
>loyalty of a large body of people and be able to interact
>effectively with them, which requires constant judgment calls and
>modifications to plans which requires either great autonomy or
>immediate access and control - an undead could be shadow behind the
>throne easily, but would not have time to effectively manage a dozen
>thrones at once!

Well, I`m not up on the details of undead time management, but it
seems to me the nature of a spawn relationship is that it would make
the process go much more quickly. No committee meetings, no
explanations or negotiations. Plus, if one doesn`t need to do normal
mortal activities like eat and sleep (I don`t think Shadows do
either...) then as undead one has more time on one`s necrotic hands....

Gary

But those "it" is dealing with do not.

True no committee meeting with the undead - but how about the ones actually performing the work? The ones making the "payments"? The ones transferring the material and resources?

Unless the entire province is made up of undead this is still a factor. And then it comes down to if the entire province is undead should it at all generate Regency (sources not withstanding)? If the entire province is undead that is pretty much a massive change in the BR make-up - even for the Shadow World.

So time is still a factor.

Lts must deal with the populace (and those actually performing the duties). That includes:

Travel: Distance must still be crossed, even if the creature doing the crossing doesn't need to sleep, the means of transport does (in most cases). You can still only walk so far in a given amount of time. And magical transporation is an entirely different element in BR (with its own specific considerations).

The ones being dealt with:
They have to sleep, eat, travel themselves. So there is a time factor there too.

Resources must be transferred.

geeman

11-30-2007, 08:46 PM

Cilwan

12-01-2007, 11:58 PM

At 02:44 AM 11/30/2007, irdeggman wrote:

>So time is still a factor.

Sure, time is still a factor, but my point is that it is less of a
factor for the undead than it would be for a mortal regent, so making
that the (non-game mechanical) rationale for why there wouldn`t be
undead regents doesn`t really add up.

Gary

Time is more of a factor than you think given the weakness of some undead. Sunlight would prevent vampires from directly overseeing alot of the day to day actions of a realm. So you have a ruler that you only see outside at night.... Wouldn't that make alot of people concerned? Resulting in a vist from the local priest?

Blooded undead work as the power behind the throne, but as the visible ruler I would think that they would quickly disposed and killed. The exception might be in some Vosguard realms... even there they would have to contend with the priesthood.

geeman

12-02-2007, 03:10 AM

At 03:58 PM 12/1/2007, Cilwan wrote:

>Sunlight would prevent vampires from directly overseeing alot of the
>day to day actions of a realm. So you have a ruler that you only
>see outside at night.... Wouldn`t that make alot of people
>concerned? Resulting in a vist from the local priest?

That`s a good point. A vampire scion (and his spawn) would
definitely have a problem regarding sunlight, though it must be noted
that the problem isn`t day really, just daylight, so they could still
administrate so long as they stay out of the direct rays of the
sun. In that regard they would be comparable to any other regent`s
need for period rest. Other undead types, though, don`t have that
particular time problem.

Whether that would actually cause people to be concerned, I have to
say it wouldn`t. After all, there are already some pretty vile
(awnsheghlien) regents in BR, who don`t provoke any particular
violence/concern. If people are willing to live under THE Vampire,
the Magian, THE Banshee, and (let`s face it) the Gorgon, can we
really expect them to get all out of sorts by being ruled by a
vampire, lich, banshee, specter, etc.? Sure, we could role-play such
a bias, but it`s kind of hard to justify in the face of existing
monstrous rulers who embody the remaining power of the setting`s
equivalent of evil itself....

>Blooded undead work as the power behind the throne, but as the
>visible ruler I would think that they would quickly disposed and
>killed. The exception might be in some Vosguard realms... even
>there they would have to contend with the priesthood.

When it boils down to it, if one wants to have undead scions I think
there has to be some sort of explanation for the fact that none exist
in the published materials. There are, I`m sure, many rationales
that one could come up with for such a thing, but without some sort
of explanation my opinion is that one starts to lose track of the setting.

So at this point, I`m thinking about including undead scions, but
under this addition: There is a powerful, secret society that has
subtle but significant power throughout the continent which has
dedicated itself over the past millennium to preventing and wiping
out "infestations" of undead scions for exactly the reasons already
described. An undead scions has vulnerabilities, of course, but in
some ways the "spawn" when combined with bloodline represents a more
serious threat to the mortal population than even
awnsheghlien. Imagine a BR equivalent of The Watchers from Buffy the
Vampire Slayer/Angel....

I always liked the idea of secret organizations that manipulate
national events from behind the scenes. Such an organization has a
coolness factor of 9.5, ties in nicely into existing campaign ideas
and could provide a framework for a whole lot of adventure
hooks.... It answers questions like, "Why aren`t there any existing
or historical undead scions if such a thing is possible?" pretty well
by allowing the DM to say that there has been... but they`ve been
wiped out pretty quickly or are forced into the kind of "power behind
the throne" situation that seems apt for such creatures. So, on the
whole, if one were to put that tweak on things then I`m all for it....

Gary

ConjurerDragon

12-02-2007, 08:29 AM

> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> At 02:44 AM 11/30/2007, irdeggman wrote:
>
>> So time is still a factor.
>>
>
> Sure, time is still a factor, but my point is that it is less of a factor for the undead than it would be for a mortal regent, so making
> that the (non-game mechanical) rationale for why there wouldn`t be undead regents doesn`t really add up.
>
> Gary
> -----------------------------
>
>
>
> Time is more of a factor than you think given the weakness of some undead. Sunlight would prevent vampires from directly overseeing alot of the day to day actions of a realm. So you have a ruler that you only see outside at night.... Wouldn`t that make alot of people concerned? Resulting in a vist from the local priest?

Not if you are the High Priestess of Ruornil and do everything at night

;-)

In Medoere we even have an example of a regent who does everything at nighttime.

geeman

12-02-2007, 11:31 AM

At 12:17 AM 12/2/2007, Michael Romes wrote:

>Not if you are the High Priestess of Ruornil and do everything at night
>In Medoere we even have an example of a regent who does everything
>at nighttime.

Another good point....

Anyway, what I was trying to get at was that there ARE game
mechanical rules for LTs and Vassals in the BR materials, and those
materials describe the nature of those relationships, their
limitations, how ease with which they can be dissolved. The "create
spawn" function of certain undead takes those relationships to a
different level that bypass or supercede the concept behind those
relationships. That`s a problem IMO since one should ignore such
things carefully and after considering the ramifications. In this
case, I think the ramifications are that ANY of the BR scions would
be vulnerable to enslavement by an undead master, and the
relationship then would be of a kind that the normal regent would
envy compared to an LT or Vassal. There aren`t any game mechanical
rules that might compensate for the disadvantages of undead
transformation, and the suggestions for how to deal with such a thing
have been abstract, role-playing/DM fiat kinds of things.... Those
things are great for adventure hooks, but they don`t really get at
the heart of the matter (if I might be forgiven a bloodtheft pun.)

Most folks would rule that a regent killed and raised as undead spawn
would lose control of his realm per the previously described section
of the BoP, correct? One might make an argument that such a
character never really "died" per se. That section is meant to deal
with regents who die and then are magically brought back after a
relatively short time, but more time than the d4 rounds (days for a
vampire) it takes for an undead spawn to raise, but just those
seconds are probably enough to provoke the loss of the realm. I ask
because if we imagine for a moment the chaos that might be cause if,
say, Prince Avan were slain by let`s say a vampire. His realm goes
to an heir, but there`s Avan looking admittedly pale, but distinctly
the same person with the same bloodmark and other relative abilities,
plus he can charm people now like nobody`s business (which has got to
be pretty useful for a regent....) Wouldn`t his presence in the
realm represent a kind of Great Captain random event on steroids? At
the very least it`d throw a nice big wrench in the works, and that`s
just one regent turned into a vampire spawn.

Any spawned scion with a GB or two can run around creating
holdings. An undead "master" who manages to get a few carefully
selected spawn could have any number of "Vassals" at his
disposal. That makes for some interesting ramifications to allowing
undead scions.

Gary

irdeggman

12-02-2007, 02:27 PM

Most folks would rule that a regent killed and raised as undead spawn
would lose control of his realm per the previously described section
of the BoP, correct?
One might make an argument that such a
character never really "died" per se. That section is meant to deal
with regents who die and then are magically brought back after a
relatively short time, but more time than the d4 rounds (days for a
vampire) it takes for an undead spawn to raise, but just those
seconds are probably enough to provoke the loss of the realm.

IMO one would be stretching things greatly to say that death is only death after a certain amount of time.

You could do resurrection (or raise dead) in less time than d4 rounds (via Miracle spell or similar).

The text in the BoP says "when a regent dies, the domain power he holds immediately transfers to his heir. . . "

I find it difficult to extroplate immediately into meaning anything other than that, definielty not a "delayed for > d4 rounds" type of thing.

Death (or being dead) is clearly defined in terms of number of hit points - and not a number of rounds after that condition is reached.

kgauck

12-02-2007, 07:37 PM

Just to be obnoxious, I'll point out that in the Baruk-Azhik PS, there is a two year period between one ruler and another, and there is no discussion of how exactly this works. We are told that the senior thane (province ruler) acts as a substitute regent (oh redundancy!), but I think that domain power transfers however you want it to for flavor. I think the sense was, for dwarves, two years is nothing, so a two year morning/transition period serves to point that up. Since players play regents, not absences of regents, maybe they just didn't think it through, or maybe you can save appearances, and say that every thane has a ceremony to name the senior thane as their heir, even though their real heir (post morning) is someone else.

The French believed that there was always a king of France, sometimes you just needed to figure out who that was, but that person always existed. The notion of immediate transfer mirrors this.

"The king is dead- long live the king!"

kgauck

12-02-2007, 07:57 PM

Probably like most players and DM's, I know the PS' of the realms I have played in, backward and forward. The whole immediate transfer thing just hit me wrong, given how close to the surface B-A floats about in my consciousness.

Please file under

You know you have been thinking about Birthright too much when ....

geeman

12-02-2007, 08:15 PM

At 11:37 AM 12/2/2007, kgauck wrote:

>Just to be obnoxious, I`ll point out that in the Baruk-Azhik PS,
>there is a two year period between one ruler and another, and there
>is no discussion of how exactly this works.

Heh. Lots of things in that PS that are problematic. The same
material makes it so that Graybeard isn`t really dead, so maybe
that`s the (otherwise unspoken) rationale for the transfer not
occurring more rapidly or in the regular fashion. At the end of that
period he is voluntarily turning over the reigns of power after doing
whatever it was he needed to do in order to accomplish his
tranformation (like continue to earn RP to spend on some mystical
ascension process....)

Gary

AndrewTall

12-02-2007, 09:39 PM

Blood of the new gods
I'd say that the new gods are every bit as holy as the old... If someone is infused with the power of the new gods to the point of being restored to life - which presumably involves having had their spirit guided from the appropriate plane/area of the Shadow world - then I'd say there was a good argument for saying that some of the power lingered. For ease the bloodline would track the appropriate old god that originally empowered the new god - unless a GM wants to make things a little more interesting. If you play with that sort of rule then you can say that bloodline is lost on death without penalising PC regents unduly by having them come back with a minor bloodline and therefore still able to rule 'their' realm.

Spawn
The number of actions issue is not need for sleep, rest etc - its the manner in which the master has control over the spawn. Typically this is described as absolute control for most undead - in that case it doesn't matter whether the spawn was formerly a scion or not, the spawn may be a figurehead but they cannot act independently of the master and so a master undead spawning 3 scion's into minions still has their usual 3 actions only. They don't get their 3 and 9 more from ultra-loyal spawn-vassals.

I'd argue strongly that if the spawns are sufficiently free-willed to get their own set of actions - i.e. free willed enough to plan, scheme, etc - then the typical absolute domination relationship of spawn and master is broken - it was designed for a dungeon bash where options were reduced to 'hit the big guy in plate, don't be dominated by the mage while doing so' - not for a situation where ghast-spawn A has to charm lady Donele into encouraging her lover Duraend into challenging spawn-A's enemy Riegon into a duel, etc. At the most the master may be able to exercise domination when physically proximate to the spawn, but that prevents the master carrying out their own actions - and whenever the master left the spawns side it would immediately be plotting to free itself of the masters domination - and quite possibly have the resources to make such a wish happen 'arch-prelate, the donation is a trifle, when my ship comes in it will be tripled! In the meantime I fear I have terrible news, my sources inform me that count Raenwe is not waht he seems - indeed he is a vampire! He was seen preying on poor shepherds a week ago, quite terrible I am sure you agree. Fortunately I have knowledge of vulnerabilities shared by his kind if you can find some brave souls to take advantage of them...'

It is worth remembering that sources aside, all domain actions tend to involve large numbers of people serving the regent, various inter-weaving power plays as people jockey for position or to take advantage of the regent's actions, etc. If the spawn can only act when the master tells them to do so then these sorts of issues will swiftly dominate the spawns agenda and prevent it from carrying out its masters plans - the guilds frustrate the rulers in Talinie and Dhoesone for example, the spawn would suffer far more if it was only effective when its master was present.

Rule by the damned
It is worth noting that of the awnies mentioned, the magian has only just arrived - and uses a figurehead to avoid terrifying people with his presence, the Gorgon is served by scum only, the Vampire has to run a police state to imprison his people and stop them fleeing, and the (still being maligned) Banshee is as far as can be seen a sweet half elf with a perchant for low taxes and fair rulership - the 'banshee' in question simply being some evil spirit preying on isolated folk int he hills. Even the Swordhawk and Raven go swathed in armour to avoid scaring the natives over-much. I can see a vampire making a reasonable regent, possibly a well-preserved lich - but a ghast or mummy? There is only so much rulership that 'speaking from behind thick curtains' can do.

If undead start openly trying to rule, or begin transforming peasants/etc en masse to spawn / zombies / etc and make an entirely undead nation, then aside from the religious issues there is going to be mass panic and a collapse of the society they are trying to rule - if people are literally more use dead than alive to their regent and the regent is infamous for being merciless and seeing people as merely prey, then emigration or rebellion is the only reasonable response long term for the mass populace.

Secret orders
I'd see the religions are key in these - Ruornil would almost certainly see destroying undead regents as a holy duty, Haelyn might well see them as a perversion of his order - particularly if they prey upon their vassals, Erik would oppose them as unnatural, etc. Then you have mages who don't want the mebhaighl of the land polluted by awnmebhaighl drawn by the undead regent, etc. In any specific case you also get noble families who see their chances of marrying into power, etc destroyed by having an immortal on the throne, etc.

ryancaveney

12-29-2007, 06:37 PM

If the soul departs the body (in death), the divine essence is released as the spirit is ripped from the body. That's how bloodtheft and loss of the bloodline occurs. However, sentient undead creatures keep their souls bound to their bodies, animating them. I would say that Azrai's essence in his bloodlines can be preserved through the process into undeath, but not that of any of the other gods. However, undead awnsheghlien cannot spawn progeny.

Well, you've definitely made up my mind. The above is now true IMC. =) I don't think it should really be restricted to scions of Azrai, though. Yes, his blood should have the easiest time making the transition, and any other blood going through the process should be at risk of corruption, but I think there ought to be a ritual that can bind any scion's bloodline to an undead body. In fact, I think the Magian should have used it at least once already, and make reference to it in negotiations: "So you see, Your Grace, you can either become my willing vassal, or you'll be killed, reanimated and commanded into service like poor Count Reginald over there. Wave, Reginald! Good chap. Now, sir, which option do you and your charming wife prefer?"

I resist the strong implications I see through most of BRnet to cast the Seeming as an entirely corrupted source of power. There are still supposed to be Faerie Realms--as well as the domains of the gods--that persist in untainted Seeming.

IMO, the Shadow World has sources and holdings and province levels and realm rulers and all, just like non-Shadow Cerilia, except slightly-to-immensely different. In fact, I think the one reason Rhoubhe Manslayer doesn't just kill all the humans in Anuire this afternoon is that he spends all of his time and effort ruling the entire Shadow World Aelvinnwode, contending against the Cold Rider (the would-be Emperor Roele of the Shadow World). El-Sheighul, the Raven and Tuar Annwn are the other well-known realms which, IMO, exist mostly on the other side of the Evanescence.

jumin

12-30-2007, 03:42 AM

Litches are kept alive my magic so they really dont die to begin with so I would say them and possibly vampires could but not other lesser undead

geeman

12-30-2007, 04:18 AM

At 07:42 PM 12/29/2007, jumin wrote:

>Litches are kept alive my magic so they really dont die to begin
>with so I would say them and possibly vampires could but not other
>lesser undead

Dying is probably part of the transition from mortal to lich. At
least, they go through a ritualized ceremony in which a potion is
drunk that could be poisonous, so they die and return as undead. At
least, that`s what I`d gathered from the stuff I`ve read on the
subject in the various D&D manuals and Republican party brochures.

Gary

RaspK_FOG

12-30-2007, 07:12 AM

This varies by the setting and minutae slightly, but part of becoming a lich includes "dying." Or, rather, would have died: as you die, the whole process makes sure that your soul does not depart as it should, but gets to recide in your phylactery.

Mind you, it's almost impossible to not be evil to become a lich: the whole process requires acts so selfish and vile that a lot of us found it almost idiotic to allow the Tel'Quessir (as they did in FR) the ability to become good liches, even if only as NPCs, really...

ryancaveney

12-30-2007, 04:05 PM

it's almost impossible to not be evil to become a lich: the whole process requires acts so selfish and vile that a lot of us found it almost idiotic to allow the Tel'Quessir (as they did in FR) the ability to become good liches, even if only as NPCs, really...

*shudder* *twitch* The concept of elves who voluntarily become undead is deranged! IMO, the mere existence of such a one would be plenty of reason for the most tree-hugging elf to decide a meteor swarm in the forest was an excellent idea, so long as it annihilated the abomination!

The interesting BR question on the topic is, what about Rhuobhe Manslayer? I certainly don't think he is undead, but I do think he's the only elven regent who would be happy to cast Undead Legion -- as long as it kills humans, he's OK with it. What do others think of how the Sidhelien feel about the undead?

kgauck

12-30-2007, 05:22 PM

Undead are a natural part of the Shadow World, where their opposites the seelie dwell, so the kind of undead we're talking about, skeletons and zombies, would be as disturbingly unnatural to them as it would be to us, perhaps slightly more so.

On the other hand, spirits themselves, whether from the Spirit World (the uncorrupted portions of the SW) or in the daylight world, would be perfectly natural.

I think its the spiritless undead powered by negative energy (or shadow stuff, I'd like to see what the 4e term is) that offends the sidhe. Sprits that refuse to give up their bodies and embrace the taint of Shadow to continue in a morbid existence as a greater undead is offensive in a different way. Those who remain because they are depraved in some sort, are offensive for their depravity. Those who are trapped because they cannot escape, are pitiable and tragic, worthy of destruction to release the poor soul from its bondage.

Is it possible that timaeveril was originally concieved as a way to kill undead in such a way that frees the spirit of its bondage, rather than simply destroying the body and leaving the soul in bondage. This might go along with Rowan's theory:

If the soul departs the body (in death), the divine essence is released as the spirit is ripped from the body. That's how bloodtheft and loss of the bloodline occurs. However, sentient undead creatures keep their souls bound to their bodies, animating them.

The fact that timaeveril also separates bloodlines from the body so completely is an unforeseen side effect? I'm just taking what Rowen and Ryan have said one step further here, but I think its powerful. Is there agreement about this, or significant rejection?

Rowan

12-30-2007, 08:10 PM

I like that, Kgauck. It would certainly explain why an elf would endeavor to create tighmaevril. It also seemed odd to me that they'd be so interested in making a weapon for the sole purpose of bloodtheft.

If you want to apply an existing game effect to explain it, tighmaevril could act as a disrupting weapon.

To hypothesize a little more, the divinity involved in a bloodline is inherent to Aebrynis rather than the Spirit World (it gets tied to the land). This might imply that when the soul or spirit separates from the physical in Aebrynis and is cast into the Spirit world, the bloodline does not readily go with it. Tighmaevril, then, acts to strengthen the Evanescence, forcing a complete separation between soul and bloodline upon death as it acts as the Sundering barrier between the two worlds.

ryancaveney

12-30-2007, 09:00 PM

I like that, Kgauck. It would certainly explain why an elf would endeavor to create tighmaevril. It also seemed odd to me that they'd be so interested in making a weapon for the sole purpose of bloodtheft.

One of the few things we do know for sure about tighmaevril is that whatever its original purpose was, it wasn't bloodtheft. According to the Rulebook (p. 31), all the weapons were created more than 500 years *before* Deismaar, when there were no bloodlines to steal: "The weapons were first prized for their strength and beauty. Their unusual properties remained undiscovered until one such waepon was used to kill a scion." Vastly increasing the efficiency of bloodtheft is just an accidental side-effect, unless some really powerful prophecy was involved. Being especially attuned to killing undead makes at least as much sense as anything else I can think of.

If you want to apply an existing game effect to explain it, tighmaevril could act as a disrupting weapon.

3e DMG says only bashing weapons can be weapons of disruption, while tightmaevril weapons are generally piercing or slashing -- but since they're artifacts and it's thematically appropriate, I see no reason they shouldn't bend that particular rule. I've not yet had a bloodsilver weapon actually appear in an adventure, but I'll certainly include undead disruption if I ever do.

Tighmaevril, then, acts to strengthen the Evanescence, forcing a complete separation between soul and bloodline upon death as it acts as the Sundering barrier between the two worlds.

Oooh, this I like. Maybe then the original motivation was to create the perfect reusable material focus for a spell to help close portals from the Shadow World! That makes a lot of sense.

geeman

12-31-2007, 02:24 PM

At 08:05 AM 12/30/2007, ryancaveney wrote:

>The interesting BR question on the topic is, what about Rhuobhe
>Manslayer? I certainly don`t think he is undead, but I do think
>he`s the only elven regent who would be happy to cast Undead Legion
>-- as long as it kills humans, he`s OK with it. What do others
>think of how the Sidhelien feel about the undead?

I think you`re on the money here. Rhoubhe might summon undead--might
even think of it as a good idea--but the other elven source holders
would avoid it at all costs--especially since they really should have
at their disposal some sort of "Summon Sylvan Army" type magics that
would give them units made up of woodland creatures comprised of
animals like bears and wolves, and led by other forest creatures.

Nobody knows what it is that Roubhe is transforming into, but I like
the idea that it is some sort of elven equivalent of a lich or other undead....

Gary

geeman

12-31-2007, 02:24 PM

It occurs to me that there is also "The Lich" in Sideath that might
cast undead related realm spells.... Though, in that case, it
actually seems like he might be less inclined to do so than even Rhoubhe.

Gary

kgauck

12-31-2007, 06:53 PM

I always thought that the Sideath wizard was trying to combat the SW and either opened a Pandora's Box, or what happened to Sideath was a counter-attack from the other side. I don't know that I'd want the Sidheath wizard to be the bad guy in that situation, but rather a lesson of the dangers of messing about with forbidden lore, shadow world stuff, or making enemies in the SW.

geeman

12-31-2007, 10:00 PM

At 10:53 AM 12/31/2007, kgauck wrote:

>I always thought that the Sideath wizard was trying to combat the SW
>and either opened a Pandora`s Box, or what happened to Sideath was a
>counter-attack from the other side. I don`t know that I`d want the
>Sidheath wizard to be the bad guy in that situation, but rather a
>lesson of the dangers of messing about with forbidden lore, shadow
>world stuff, or making enemies in the SW.

The nature of his transformation makes him seem like an elf who`d
have less trouble with the concept of undead. The elven repugnance
for undead is certainly profound, but someone who has certain undead
qualities, and sees in himself how they can have certain pragmatic
values, might be less worried about using one form of "evil" (if
undead must necessarily be seen as such) against another....

Gary

Rowan

01-02-2008, 05:37 AM

Ryan, I know the DMG makes disruption a bludgeoning-only function, but this seems like a relic from just the 2e Mace of Disruption, and to offset the fact that Keen can't apply to bludgeoning weapons. If tighmaevril has a Sundering effect, it would almost make more sense for it to provide the Disruption effect to edged weapons.

I do like the idea of tighmaevril being designed against the Shadow World. The difficulty of its creation would probably have something to do with capturing the essence of the Evanescence, or some sort of treatment in meghbvaigl used to Disrupt awnmeghbaigl...need to think more on that...

As for the Sideath wizard, I expect it depends on whether you think he made himself a lich intentionally, or if it was an accident or a willing sacrifice. I tend to think he knew the risks and was willing to take them. It probably did have something to do with letting awnmeghbaigl flood in and tear apart the province as it clashed with meghbaigl.

As for Summon spells, I think it's pretty appropriate to let elves cast almost any non-healing Druid spell. Add those spells to their spell list to reflect their nature focus and their extensive mastery of magic--they are always supposed to have more magic at their disposal than mortals, after all.