Blooded Undead?

[dunsel]

In my campaign one of my regents died and was reanimated, becoming a free-willed undead. Just before doing this he attempted to divest his bloodline into his non-blooded apprentice. Since I know he reads these forums I can't give to many details as to how I handled the mechanics of that.

The question I have now is, can he become blooded again? I know it is only a matter of time until he slays a blooded character, does he have a chance of becoming blooded?

I'm already pretty sure what I'm going to do, but I wanted to post here and see what you all thought about this. Again, I can't say what I've decided since Midnight reads here often.

There's a good discussion about this over at:
http://birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4066&highlight=undead

Specifically, what would it take to become blooded in your opinions?

[AndrewTall]

Specifically, what would it take to become blooded in your opinions?

An appropriately great story line. If regaining a bloodline - and possibly mortality / a twisted mockery thereof - is of benefit to the storyline and the player can pull of the RP requiredwthout narking the other players, then it works - nuff said.

[Thelandrin]

I have to agree with Andrew. If it's at all feasible, is good for the plot and the other players don't mind going along with it, just let it happen!

[Capricia]

I'm going to disagree with the other two posters. As per the BRCS :
"Contained within the blood of each scion is some tiny fraction of the divine essence that was released when the ancient gods were destroyed at Deismaar."

If the body is undead, the blood isn't flowing. That divine spark is gone, dead as the body that housed it. Allowing your player to "regain" Divine essence into a body that doesn't even have a beating heart is introducing a serious power imbalance into the game. They are called 'blood powers' because they are linked directly to the life blood of the scion. Death severs this link. If death severs the link, you can't "reset and start over". Otherwise I can think of a number of evil regents who'd be all over that plan!

Of course, that would have its own issues, since Anuire is very much adverse to necromancy, raising the dead etc. An undead regent should find itself the target of a number of temples and good aligned regents.

I am not a fan of "If it feels good, do it" theory of DMing. It always leads to trouble, power imbalances and players feeling they are not getting the same "cool stuff" as other players.

[geeman]

At 02:24 PM 2/20/2008, dunsel wrote:

>The question I have now is, can he become blooded again? I know it
>is only a matter of time until he slays a blooded character, does he
>have a chance of becoming blooded?

This is one of those things that remains undecided. Some folks favor
it, while others are against, but neither side can really find
supporting evidence in the existing materials to support their
opinion. There`s even been some debate about whether a scion would
keep his bloodline after being raised as undead, and little to
support or refute either stance on the issue.

Personally, I think that lack is the best evidence that such a thing
should not be possible. After all, if it is possible for an undead
to gain a bloodline one would think that in the 1,500 years that
there have been bloodlines on the continent some undead somewhere
would have gained one and been notable enough to be mentioned
somewhere in the recorded history of the setting. Some regent
somewhere and somewhen who was raised as undead (assuming he doesn`t
keep his bloodline automatically) would have purposely set about
gained a new one and ruled at some point in the setting, and such a
thing would be worth noting, especially since that character is
"immortal" just as other (non-undead) characters in the setting are,
and could still be around. So if it were possible, I think we`d have
heard of it happening.

From a simple gaming standpoint, it seems like it opens a whole new
can of worms regarding the possibility of a character gaining too
much power and having too much control. Undead regents means undead
scions means undead scion spawn, and that seems like the kind of
thing that could get out of control if the DM were to adjudicate the
system objectively. Many of the issues folks have with the recent
discussion about aging and experience being problematic when related
to immortal elves are just as big a problem for immortal
undead. We`re "stuck" with the immortality of elves and their
ability to be scions, but the DM needn`t extend that dynamic to yet
another type of character... or if he does he should be aware that it
might lead to the kinds of things that several folks find game
breaking or that strains their sense of the game.

Gary

[ShadowMoon]

Vampires could be blooded, at least temporary, IMHO...

[irdeggman]

What rules are you using?

2nd ed, BRCS or house-rules? The specific answer depends on the framework to be used.

Using the BRCS (sanction Chapter 2):

Technically, yes it would be possible.


People, animals, and on very rare occasions, even objects in the immediate area of a scion's violent death may absorb a portion of the scion's divine essence.

So follow the rules there for Usurpation and the section on becoming blooded through usurpation.

But pay attention to the codifier of "on very rare occasions". Personally I would allow it but I would insert some special mechanic to make it more difficult to accomplish, perhaps haveing a lesser effect (like only half as good as the normal method).

Under Chap 3 Resurrection:


Secondly, when a scion dies, the vital energy of their bloodline is released at the moment of their death and absorbed by those nearby. A resurrected character's bloodline is gone forever. They have no bloodline score and are not a scion. They can certainly attempt to gain a new bloodline through investiture or bloodtheft, but their original bloodline can never be restored.

Lastly, when a regent dies, their domain passes to their heir (or becomes uncontrolled if they have no designated heir). The resurrected character is no longer a regent. Another now claims the gold and regency of the domain that they once held. History has shown that resurrecting a scion often leads to tragic events as the resurrected party is tempted to engage in bloodtheft to reclaim a birthright they feel is rightfully theirs. In order to reclaim their domain, a resurrected regent would need to somehow obtain a bloodline and re-invest their old realm from its current regent (their heir).


2nd ed rules

Book of Priestcraft:

pg 83

"Should the regent be returned to life at some later time by use of magic, the former regernt doe not regain his lost domain; it remains in the hands of his successor. His death devered 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 possibley win a new domain elsewhere in Cerilia, since he retains his bloodline (unless he willingly gave it away by designating it before his death."

The 2nd ed material is silent on whether undead can have bloodlines or not, although there are examples of undead (albeit awnies) that have them.

Actually looking deeper undead can become blooded.

In the Rjurik Highlands (pg 96) there is a new creature, the Spectral Scion, which is a creature that was slain with a taeghmaevril weapon (hence they lost their bloodline in the process). One of their special abilities is that they can regain a bloodline by slaying a scion.

One thing is clear though - the act of dying severs the connection between a regent and his holdings immediately.

In 2nd ed he can never regain them in the BRCS the door is open for him to do so.

[tpdarkdraco]

I don't see why he couldn't become blooded. Blood Enemies pg 59 the Magian is undead and it qoutes

"Now, he is immortal, as the blood of Azrai removed the frailties of his undead state."

I don't see why he couldn't be blooded but I would probably only allow Azrai blood to do this as it is twisted and evil and full of dark power from an evil god.

[geeman]

tpdarkdraco wrote:

>I don`t see why he couldn`t become blooded. Blood Enemies pg 59 the
>Magian is undead and it qoutes
>
>"Now, he is immortal, as the blood of Azrai removed the frailties of
>his undead state."

Well.... The Magian is "undead" but he`s not standard, D&D undead,
which is what is being asked about here. The Magian is one of the
Lost, and his undead state has to do with a connection to the Shadow
World and the power of Azrai. In a sense, he`s a proto-scion. His
immortality and powers are already based on the power of a god
flowing through him, so it`s not particularly surprising that he
could have a bloodline. If one`s power is based on godly influence,
gaining a power that represents godly influence isn`t much of a
leap. His awnsheghlien abilities mimic those of a lich, but he`s not
really a lich if you line up their abilities and compare them directly.

I`d also note that the BRCS document`s text on gaining a bloodline
through bloodtheft/usurpation is also silent on undead. Yes, it is
possible for all kinds of things to gain a bloodline, or gain effects
that are similar, and that`s based on some ideas in the original 2e
setting, but that text was meant to be exceptional rather than a
general concept.

So, if the question is, "Can a creature made undead by Azrai before
Deismaar gain a bloodline (particularly Azrai`s derivation) after
returning to Cerilia?" then yes, I think that`s possible. If the
question is "can a regular D&D character who becomes a typical D&D
undead and gain a bloodline?" then my answer is still no. If one has
exceptional (read: DM fiat) circumstances then sure, it`s possible,
just as it`s possible for the DM to have an awakened carrot with a
bloodline if he so chooses.

Gary

[irdeggman]

So, if the question is, "Can a creature made undead by Azrai before
Deismaar gain a bloodline (particularly Azrai`s derivation) after
returning to Cerilia?" then yes, I think that`s possible. If the
question is "can a regular D&D character who becomes a typical D&D
undead and gain a bloodline?" then my answer is still no. If one has
exceptional (read: DM fiat) circumstances then sure, it`s possible,
just as it`s possible for the DM to have an awakened carrot with a
bloodline if he so chooses.

Gary

See Spectral Scion for an example of an BR specific non-unique undead that can gain a bloodline (specifically a scion that was killed previously).

[ploesch]

First off, when the player died, he should have lost his bloodline as the rules state. Every version is pretty clear on the fact that the link between the land and the Scion is broken and even if resurected the charcter is no longer a scion.

Between the Magian and even objects being able to absorb some of the released essense, I would most definetely allow an intelligent undead to become Scions.

However, as a GM I would feel obligated to make the characters undeath as a scion hell. If the people found out, they would plot and unrest would become more common. Their neighbors would plot against the undead scion no matter how nice he seemed. He would have to take extreme measures to try to escape detection, but as a scion, especially if they have a domain, it would be nearly impossible for no one to notice the change. Speaking of changes, hiding his new "life style" would likely require changing old habits. Do they have a lover? Even a queen might go to the nearest priest upon suspicion of their King being undead. Remember, in Cerilia undead are part of the shadow world. So anyone playing undead would automatically be assumed to be evil even if they weren't.

If it became common knowledge, elves would leave their homes to destroy the scions domain. The abomination might be enough for Humans and elves to stand together to destroy them if that's what it took.

So yeah, while I would allow it, I don't think the players undeath would be very long lived.

I also agree that the player would corrupt any bloodline they inherited into that of Azrai.

[geeman]

At 04:30 PM 2/21/2008, irdeggman wrote:

>See Spectral Scion for an example of an BR specific non-unique
>undead that can gain a bloodline (specifically a scion that was
>killed previously).

A Spectral Scion does not gain or retain a bloodline after death. At
least, there is not bloodline listed in the stats for the monster,
despite a rather detailed list of things that the creature does
retain. A Spectral Scion drains the bloodline from blooded
characters due to its "hunger" for their own missing bloodline, and
bloodline can be returned to the victim, but the Spectral Scion
itself doesn`t actually manifest any sort of bloodline.

If you meant the Spectral Awnshegh from Bloodspawn, however, you
might be on to something. Those characters do retain some sort of
bloodline after death and usurpation. However, as they "exist at the
will (and the whim) of the Cold Rider" there`s something else going
on there. The Cold Rider is a kind of god, maybe even the remnant of
Azrai himself, so there`s a whole exceptional loophole in that
process that is not unlike the Lost.

Gary

[geeman]

At 05:43 PM 2/21/2008, ploesch wrote:

>First off, when the player died, he should have lost his bloodline
>as the rules state. Every version is pretty clear on the fact that
>the link between the land and the Scion is broken and even if
>resurected the charcter is no longer a scion.

That was my impression too, but a more careful reading of the text
indicates that what`s being talked about there is the link between a
regent and his domain, not a scion and his bloodline. Regency is
lost upon death, but not bloodline, so a scion who was raised from
the dead by a spell would retain his bloodline.

I suppose one could interpret the break between the scion and "the
land" as a loss of bloodline... but it seems pretty clear that that
was not the original intent.

Gary

[irdeggman]

First off, when the player died, he should have lost his bloodline as the rules state. Every version is pretty clear on the fact that the link between the land and the Scion is broken and even if resurected the charcter is no longer a scion.


Gary is correct (see the quote fro the Book of Priestcraft I provided earlier).

A scion who dies loses his tie to his holdings but not his bloodline (unless slain with a bloodlsilver weapon or he had done a ceremony of Investiture to transfer his bloodline ahead of time).

In the OP's case the PC had done a transfer of bloodline so he is now an unblooded free-willed undead.

Where (and how) he goes from there is what he wants to know.

[irdeggman]

At 04:30 PM 2/21/2008, irdeggman wrote:

>See Spectral Scion for an example of an BR specific non-unique
>undead that can gain a bloodline (specifically a scion that was
>killed previously).

A Spectral Scion does not gain or retain a bloodline after death. At
least, there is not bloodline listed in the stats for the monster,
despite a rather detailed list of things that the creature does
retain. A Spectral Scion drains the bloodline from blooded
characters due to its "hunger" for their own missing bloodline, and
bloodline can be returned to the victim, but the Spectral Scion
itself doesn`t actually manifest any sort of bloodline.


My bad, you are correct here. The SS "steals" blood points but doesn't seem to gain anything by doing so.

The weapon Blood Hungry (from the adventure of the same name) likewise steals bloodline points but it only gains Int and magical enhancements but not a bloodline.

[Capricia]

That was my impression too, but a more careful reading of the text
indicates that what`s being talked about there is the link between a
regent and his domain, not a scion and his bloodline. Regency is
lost upon death, but not bloodline, so a scion who was raised from
the dead by a spell would retain his bloodline.

I suppose one could interpret the break between the scion and "the
land" as a loss of bloodline... but it seems pretty clear that that
was not the original intent.

Gary

I found this in the BRCS

"However, because the scions divine essence is contained in his blood, this usurpation can only occur if a scion dies in a violent manner and his blood is literally spilt. If a blooded character dies non-violently, by poison, or a spell that doesn't result in the spilling of blood, then the divine essence of their bloodline passes with them, either to their heir or to into the land itself if they had not designated a heir. However, if a scion's blood is spilt as a result of his death in hand-to-hand combat then the divine essence of his or her birthright is released in a burst of immediate power."

It makes it pretty clear that the bloodline goes when the scion dies. Either it leaves for an heir, back to the land, or to their killer in the case of usurpation or bloodtheft.

And once undead, how do you put a "divine spark" into a reanimated shell?

[irdeggman]

I found this in the BRCS

"However, because the scions divine essence is contained in his blood, this usurpation can only occur if a scion dies in a violent manner and his blood is literally spilt. If a blooded character dies non-violently, by poison, or a spell that doesn't result in the spilling of blood, then the divine essence of their bloodline passes with them, either to their heir or to into the land itself if they had not designated a heir. However, if a scion's blood is spilt as a result of his death in hand-to-hand combat then the divine essence of his or her birthright is released in a burst of immediate power."

It makes it pretty clear that the bloodline goes when the scion dies. Either it leaves for an heir, back to the land, or to their killer in the case of usurpation or bloodtheft.

And once undead, how do you put a "divine spark" into a reanimated shell?


Gary was referring to the 2nd ed rules, again which I provided the quote from earlier. (See Book of Priestcraft).

I also referenced the BRCS rules that pertain.

I also pointed out that there was a difference depending on what rule set was being used. The one commonality to both is that the regent's tie to his holdings is gone.

The BRCS has the scion losing his bloodline once dead (see the quote from Chapter 3 under resurrection)

I also pointed out that in Chapter 2 it talks about objects getting bloodlines (similar words existed in the 2nd ed rules). In general an undead is considered "an object" so it would technically be possible to have an undead receive a bloodline, but it is supposed to be rare.

So since a divine spark can be placed into an object. . . . .

[geeman]

At 12:39 PM 2/22/2008, Capricia wrote:

>I found this in the BRCS
>
>"However, because the scions divine essence is contained in his
>blood, this usurpation can only occur if a scion dies in a violent
>manner and his blood is literally spilt. If a blooded character dies
>non-violently, by poison, or a spell that doesn`t result in the
>spilling of blood, then the divine essence of their bloodline passes
>with them, either to their heir or to into the land itself if they
>had not designated a heir. However, if a scion`s blood is spilt as a
>result of his death in hand-to-hand combat then the divine essence
>of his or her birthright is released in a burst of immediate power."
>
>It makes it pretty clear that the bloodline goes when the scion
>dies. Either it leaves for an heir, back to the land, or to their
>killer in the case of usurpation or bloodtheft.

As Irdeggman pointed out, I think this is a misreading of the
original rules, so the folks who put together the current document
erred in this interpretation. I had made the same assumption,
though, because the text in the Rulebook, p31 also makes it sound as
if bloodline goes too: "If a blooded character dies a natural death
or perishes at the hand of a commoner, his bloodline is unaffected,
and all his bloodline characteristics die with him...."

There was a pretty consistent problem with the use of terms in the
original 2e document, so "bloodline is unaffected" and "all his
bloodline characteristics die" would seem to be a contradiction, but
what the latter term appears to mean is that no bloodline is
transferred to the killer given the context of the other quotes in
the rest of that section. The main issues are the scion`s bloodline,
how much (if any) bloodline is transferred to a killer, a regent`s
accumulated RP, and the disposition of a regent`s domain after his
death. The circumstances under which a scion/regent can die as
presented in the original bloodtheft rules are

1. A scion killed by a commoner or dying a "natural" death.
2. A regent killed by a commoner or dying a "natural" death.
3. A scion killed by another scion.
4. A regent killed by another scion.
5. A "last of his line" regent killed by a scion.
6. A scion killed by a scion wielding a tighmaevril weapon.
7. A regent killed by a scion wielding a tighmaevril weapon.

The results of those deaths are:

1. Nothing much other than a stained shirt and funeral expenses.
2. Domain and RP transferred to an heir.
3. Slayer gains 1 or 2 bloodline score points.
4. Slayer gains 1 or 2 bloodline score points, domain is transferred
to an heir, RP are lost.
5. Slayer gains 1/5 of victim`s bloodline score points and his
RP. Domain becomes "uncontrolled."
6. Slayer gains 1/2 of victim`s bloodline score points.
7. Slayer gains 1/2 of victim`s bloodline score points, RP are lost
and domain becomes uncontrolled.

However, where I think the source of confusion is that things get
even more convoluted when it comes to the rules regarding the
designation of an heir, because once an heir is invested a victim`s
bloodline score is transferred to that character upon his
death. Should such a scion or regent be killed and raised from the
dead he`d have no bloodline since that power has gone to the
heir. That would appear to be what was meant by the text that says
that the scion`s "bloodline is unaffected" should he die under
circumstances #1 and #2. That is, all the other methods of
bloodtheft take bloodline score points from the scion/regent and
interfere with the inheritance process by reducing the amount of the
inheritance. The heir of a scion who was killed under circumstance
#3 would inherit a bloodline that was 1 or 2 points lower than the
original since those points were drained off by the
killer. Similarly, a scion who died under circumstance #6 would only
pass along half his bloodline to his heir.

Conversely, a scion who died under any of those circumstances without
an heir would lose a like amount from his bloodline score. That is,
a regent killed under circumstance #2 who had no heir could be raised
from the dead with this bloodline intact, while one who was the "last
of his line" (#5) would lose 1/5 of his bloodline when raised.

>And once undead, how do you put a "divine spark" into a reanimated shell?

In the absence of some exceptional mode of reanimation, I don`t think
you can. I think there must be something about the nature of
bloodline that prevents it from taking hold in any of the standard
D&D undead. Maybe it has to do with the nature of worship and
divinity. After all, I don`t think a regent would derive a whole
heck of a lot of regency from the adoration of a zombie
population.... Maybe it has to do with the nature of immortality
(either undead or elven) being the kind of thing that turns a
character away from the ability and inclination to worship gods in
the way that other mortal characters can. (Though that one`s a bit
of an interpretation too....) Maybe it has something to do with the
interaction between bloodline, the world of light and cosmic
interference from the Shadow World. There are any number of
justifications for such an interpretation.

Just as important, though, is that I think there are several game
mechanical reasons to avoid the situation. So I don`t think it
should be used in BR as a standard concept, and would advise against
it in a homebrew unless someone wanted to take their game in a
direction that might diverge strongly from the ideas expressed in the
original materials.

OK, so that said, if one wanted to allow it, I could see some sort of
exception for a few intelligent undead, particularly vampires, whose
feeding habits have a nice symmetry with the idea of bloodline and
some of the exceptional modes of bloodline transfer described in the
original materials. Other undead feed on humans in various ways--I
wrote up a ghoulish awnshegh once whose background had to do with
having been "executed" (he could arguably have been only near death
rather than actually dead) and then thrown on a pile of corpses where
his transformation took hold and he began to feed upon the
dead. That character is one of the exceptions rather than the rule
since he was already a scion, and therefore his transformation was
into a ghoul-like awnshegh, not an actual ghoul, but the basic
premise having to do with devouring the dead makes a certain sense
for ghouls and ghasts.

It should be noted, however, that even The Vampire didn`t seem to
come about becoming blooded in this way....

Personally, I haven`t quite figured out what happens with a lich when
he becomes undead. Liches are specifically mentioned in the back of
the rulebook (but so are gnomes...) but if one loses bloodline upon
death/undeath then how would a lich remain able to cast true
magic? Surely that ability is one that is necessary for such a
character, and part of what makes one a lich in the first
place. Lich-magicians just don`t seem apt. Of course, given the
"low-level" and "low-magic" nature of the setting, that particular
issue is something of a rarity, but it`s worth mentioning.

Gary

[kgauck]

If one loses bloodline upon death/undeath then how would a lich remain able to cast true magic? Surely that ability is one that is necessary for such a
character, and part of what makes one a lich in the first place.

Perhaps the wizard seeks a patron from the Shadow World who helps them craft the lich’s phylactery, which is then concealed in the SW. At this time the two work to corrupt the wizards sources with awnmebhaighl, which the lich will require to continue controlling the sources. The dark power forges a ley line to the lich's holdings in one or two places, which acts as a portal for the dark power to seek to corrupt more life from the daylight world. As the dark power goes about with his desired goal of corruption, strange goings on occur and undead appear with frequency. To the learned, this heralds the arrival of a lich. So while the wizard is now a lich, those most interested in their destruction are alerted to their corruption and the ally who helped (and was neccesary for the process) acts as a kind of beacon corrupting and creating mayhem.

[geeman]

At 12:37 AM 2/23/2008, kgauck wrote:

>Perhaps the wizard seeks a patron from the Shadow World who helps
>them craft the lich`s phylactery, which is then concealed in the SW.
>At this time the two work to corrupt the wizards sources with
>awnmebhaighl, which the lich will require to continue controlling
>the sources. The dark power forges a ley line to the lich`s holdings
>in one or two places, which acts as a portal for the dark power to
>seek to corrupt more life from the daylight world. As the dark power
>goes about with his desired goal of corruption, strange goings on
>occur and undead appear with frequency. To the learned, this heralds
>the arrival of a lich. So while the wizard is now a lich, those most
>interested in their destruction are alerted to their corruption and
>the ally who helped (and was neccesary for the process) acts as a
>kind of beacon corrupting and creating mayhem.

I`m liking the BR-specific aspects of this rationale quite a bit. It
seems to compare in some ways to the Magian`s and the Raven`s
backgrounds... and it stands on its own. It`d be interesting if a BR
lich was tied to a particular province because that`s where the
source manifestation of his SW ley line.... Perhaps that ley line is
through a gate into the SW from which the lich can draw
allies.... As a domain level random event, the lich could try to
create a ley line into a regent`s province so it could travel there
and wreak havoc. (A Great Captain meets the Magical Event.) There`s
about seventy-five domain level and adventure level hooks in there....

I think the big picture of this whole thing, though, is that such a
character should have some sort of exceptional rationale to explain
his presence in the BR setting. Aside from the value of creating
unique and interesting characters/adventures, just having a standard,
D&D lich in the setting without some sort of rationale could wind up
being problematic.

For lack of a better term, I`m going to call this Robocop
Syndrome. It`s all well and good to create a character for a
one-shot adventure (or movie) but once things progress beyond that
one-shot adventure (or movie) we need some sort of way to prevent
things from getting out of control. In the not-so-good sequels to
the Robocop movies they had to come up with a reason why every police
officer who dies on duty in Old Detroit didn`t get turned into
another mecha-cyborg. The city could have had a dozen Robocopies if
the sequel was set just a few months later. They justified the one
by saying every other time they tried it the subject went crazy and
shutdown or suicided, so there was something special going on in our
title character`s psyche to keep him alive and patrolling when other
cop brains couldn`t stand the transition.

So to avoid the undead equivalent of Robocop Syndrome, one should ask
why aren`t there dozens of undead scions running around if it`s
possible at all. There are a lot of interesting ways to do that, and
I think it`s a fairly simple way of maintaining, even working with,
the existing BR dynamics in a way that adds to the gaming experience.

Gary

[kgauck]

There are a lot of assumptions to be made, I wonder if there probability at each point makes a lich remote. Then there is the question of how remote you want. Is it OK to have a mage go dark and become a lich once in a human generation? Especially if most of them only last a few months, or at best years before being hunted down and destroyed? That would make any long established lich a real rarity.

[ploesch]

I think the general dislike of Undead in BR is why there wouldn't be more undead Scions.

The main thrust of my last post covered that. In BR Undead are connected with the SW not the negative material plane. Everything linked to the shadow world is considered evil and tainted in the BR setting, so other regents wouldn't allow an undead blooded scion to come to power if they thought they could destroy them.

Awnshegh with domains are powerful enough in all ways that they are relatively safe from incursions,

An upstart undead scion, especially one that was trying to be "good" would get it from all sides. Awnshegh would be trying to destroy them as well as the other regents around them, and probably their own people.

Personally I think the PC trying to hide his secret while simultaneously looking for a "cure" besides final death could make for a really interesting and compelling campaign.

I do agree with others that if this was allowed it should be the exception, and not the rule.

If we look at the rules, it's actually more compelling to say this is possible if the scion doesn't automatically lose their bloodline upon death. Especially if you accept that if ressurected they retain their old bloodline and strength.

It all hinges on one thing. Is the divine spark in the scions blood? If it is in their blood then when the blood dies so should their divine spark. I've always thought that to be more literary than literal though. I've always thought the divine spark was contained in the person, not in the persons blood.

Once again, I would allow it, but it would not be a reward. The scion would be treated as an Abomination by any NPC that realized what they were. I might not make that absolute, close family might accept what they were if they acted and looked like their old self, but there would still be fear even there.

[kgauck]

I think the general dislike of Undead in BR is why there wouldn't be more undead [Rulers].
There are two schools of thought, one being that its hard to be an undead ruler because undead don't have bloodlines, and the second school, which I think we see here, is that even if its possible to be an undead scion or regent, everyone will regard you as something that needs to be destroyed.

The question that exists is, which is the real bottleneck that makes undead regents so diminishingly rare? Is it the very difficulty of being undead and having a bloodline, or is it that such a being, once discovered, would bring down the combined wrath of all who regard the SW as a dread place.

Each of these obstacles, and I think they should be obstacles not complete bans (in part because a DM who doesn't want an obstacle crossed can just make it so difficuly by withholding the go-ahead), presents different kinds of adventure solutions. The first case involves the whole metaphysics of the bloodline, the second case involves adventures in the SW. Personally I think that the SW is more fun, and would place most obstacles there. This doesn't mean you can't create bloodline obstacles, for instance, perhaps the lich itself doesn't have the bloodine, its the phylactery that is blooded, but I would prefer to see the majority of obstacles around the SW implementation of lichdom, rather than the Bloodline metaphysics.

[Rowan]

Not everything connected with the Shadow World is considered evil (halflings and Seelie fae). I always like to caution against that assumption because I like the Shadow World retaining still a good strong portion of Faerie/Spirit World that's a hold out against the Cold Rider. Sort of like Aebrynis flip-flopped, with as many pockets of Faerie as there are awnie realms.

Kgauck, I like what your solution for liches. I wouldn't require a Shadow World patron, but I would require it as a source for the animating power and a linkage for the phylactery. I think the bloodline DOES get stored in the object, though the linkage with the Shadow World and directly with evil, negative energies would result in corruption to Azrai derivation and awnmebhaigl. As for the problem with needing a bloodline to use true magic, I think the gem phylactery is essentially a sielshegh gem created by the would-be lich with his own bloodline. I have hypothesized about the "unspeakable acts" required to become a lich, and that might be informative, but I have other things I want to discuss in this post :)

If you're looking for advice or "consensus" from BRnet, I think the nearest we come is that blooded undead would be exceptionally rare and would necessarily have to have an Azrai bloodline. If nothing else, the connection with Shadow World negative energies would be a regular, strong corrupting influence that a character would have to fight as he strives to purify himself (if he does that at all).

I like the BRCS version of bloodline loss upon death. There should be consequences for death rarely broken. When the gods died they lost their divine essence, no resurrection seemingly possible: that's the ultimate precedent. If the bloodline is connected with the soul (as hypothesized in that other forum cited at the beginning of this thread), then perhaps a bloodline could be retained after resurrection by a soul that doesn't pass on (a ghost) or preserved by a god, or preserved in a sort of limbo by an echo of the Invulnerability trait.

I would also like to point out that a free-willed undead is NOT the same as an inanimate object: it is both animate and possesses a spirit. That spirit and the animating power of awnmebhaigl create a case unique from swords and stones containing divine power.

I think if an undead obtained a bloodline, it would likely bleed away from it; there's no soul and life force to keep it bound. Vampires, ghouls, and other undead feast on the living to gain their life force; blood powers could be the same (as suggested for the Spectral Scions). I like the idea, personally, of vampires draining and using bloodlines. I do not think that bloodlines in an undead would be self-sustaining, again because there is no soul and life force (using the distinction between spirit and soul here).

By it's very nature, I think Azrai's blood is sort of animating and self-alive, as it involuntarily twists awnsheghlien into their forms. So it is the exception.

One thing I think almost everyone would agree on is that undead should not be able to propagate their bloodlines. They might be able to divide their own bloodline and imbue another favored servant with it, but creating spawn is not the same as procreative generation of children. Notice that parents do not lose their bloodlines, but actually CREATE a new bloodline in their child--they generate it, participating, as it were, in the very gift of creation that the gods had, creating a free-willed living incarnate soul with a brand new bloodline where no power existed before. Undead spawn, even for Azrai's blood I would rule, absolutely cannot do this. There is no union between two people, no gift of life that so enriches life and this divine power.

In fact, I'm not sure I'd even let Azrai's bloodline, contained in an undead, grow through the gaining and expenditure of RP. That bloodline is already something of a parasite, and undead are so far apart from the natural order that they shouldn't be able to gain power from the land and use it to augment their bloodlines. If this is your pathway to redemption for a PC, trying to purify himself with the strength of the land, that's an interesting idea that might alter this cosmology, but by default I wouldn't go for it.

[irdeggman]

I would also like to point out that a free-willed undead is NOT the same as an inanimate object: it is both animate and possesses a spirit. That spirit and the animating power of awnmebhaigl create a case unique from swords and stones containing divine power.



But in 3.5 rule system an undead is more like an "object" than it is not, it is also more than that because it is a "type".

Spells that affect objects generally affect undead (regardless of whether or not they are "free-willed". Specifically all of those that require Fort saves that affect objects (see MM pg 317).

From the FAQ



How does the disintegrate spell affect undead?

In the same way that it affects living creatures. Since the

disintegrate spell also works on objects, it can also affect undead (Monster Manual 317).







Does the speak with dead spell work on destroyed undead? For example, can my cleric kill a zombie and then use speak with dead on it to learn who created it? The spell description implies the one-time act of becoming undead ruins any chance the spell will have of working against a creature ever again, even after it is “dead” again.

Speak with dead doesn’t work on undead creatures, only on corpses. An undead creature is not alive, but it’s also not a corpse—a corpse is an object. (The undead creature might have been made from a corpse, but it has transformed into something else, mainly a creature). If you destroy an undead creature, it ceases being a creature and becomes an object again.


Speak with dead probably won’t work on a destroyed undead creature, either, since they’re probably too badly damaged to respond to the spellcaster’s questions.

[kgauck]

Not everything connected with the Shadow World is considered evil (halflings and Seelie fae). I always like to caution against that assumption because I like the Shadow World retaining still a good strong portion of Faerie/Spirit World that's a hold out against the Cold Rider.
I agree, I just don't refer to all three places as the same thing. There is a parallel existence, "Aebrynis flip-flopped", as you say, and it is composed of a Shadow domain, a Spirit domain, and a Fey domain. So I can specify if I want you to assume evil (Shadow World), or not (Spirit World) or if I want you to assume Fey (Faerie Realm). You can also add a dream world, but I don't think its a place, like these other places, but a transportation of the spirit across the evanescence.


I wouldn't require a Shadow World patron
I added the patron because I wanted to create complications that a character could not control. A PC or NPC would really, really want to do all of this in secret. The purpose of the patron was to blow the secret. Its quite possible to ditch the patron in favor of "unspeakable acts" as long as the alert watchers of SW activity can be reasonably supposed to detect it and understand what is happening. Creation of phylactery might cause breaches between the daylight and shadow worlds, causing weird random events that tip off watchers as well. The Buffy term watcher isn't totally coincidental here, but I don't mean to imply slayers and the rest, just that there are people attached mostly to temples of Ruornil, Avani, and less and less to other gods that turn and destroy undead, that bad things are afoot.


using the distinction between spirit and soul here
I'm not a fan of the spirit/soul distinction, I think all living things are animated by spirits. Some are naturally joined (Bob's spirit in Bob's body) and some are unnaturally joined (Archmage Hektor's spirit in Bob's body, or Bob's spirit in the body of Hektor's undead wolf).

[ploesch]

To clarify my statement on everything in the shadow world being considered evil. I was talking from the perspective of the general populace of Cerilia, not from a GM perspective. The vast Majority of people in Cerilia consider anything having to do with the shadow world to be evil, which is why Cerilian Halflings hide that particular part of their origin.

Elves would understand a bit better than humans that not everything from the shadow world is evil, but an undead scion would still be an abomination in their eyes.

As to the subject of the difficulty of being an undead scion. I don't see anything in the rules that would prevent it. indeed, all the arguments I've seen actually support it. The only real argument is to what degree. The fact we are having this discussion and can't agree tells me that the rules aren't exactly clear.

can we agree on the following:
--A Scion keeps their bloodline (unless invested) when ressurected, but Domain would pass to an heir.
--Inanimate objects can gain a bloodline

If we all agree on those two things then I see no reason a scion raised as an undead creature could not be blooded and an intelligent undead creature could rule a domain.

As has been pointed out before, under the BRCS rules, your divine essense is released if you die in a violent manner. There's a pretty good chance that a PC would die in such a way, so even if raised as an intelligent undead they would no longer have a bloodline, but could obtain a new one.

In particular, I have always considered intelligent undead as more. To me that is an important distinction. A Skeleton or Zombie is just the flesh or bones being forced to move by magic. However, to retain their free will and intelligence something of their soul must remain, or possibly been replaced by an evil soul. That's how I've always played it. A lich is a good example because their soul is kept in their phlactery. I like the idea that their bloodline would be kept in their phlactery and not in their body.

[rugor]

I am not sure there is agreement that Scions do keep their Bloodline when ressurected. I think, again, that there are a lot of vague areas in BR so that a GM can take it in whatever direction he wishes.

A great example was the Ruins of Empire BR PBeM that transformed into its own unique BR world, with many rules altered to fit that GM's setting.

Infact, in some campaigns, there would be no ressurections so that would not be an issue of concern. ;)

[ploesch]

I am not sure there is agreement that Scions do keep their Bloodline when ressurected. I think, again, that there are a lot of vague areas in BR so that a GM can take it in whatever direction he wishes.

A great example was the Ruins of Empire BR PBeM that transformed into its own unique BR world, with many rules altered to fit that GM's setting.

Infact, in some campaigns, there would be no ressurections so that would not be an issue of concern. ;)

I agree on all counts. Even that we may not all agree on those points, which is why I put it that way.

I think maybe we all lost the point of the thread, or maybe we're just moving it a different direction. Are we trying to help a GM that has decided to allow an undead Scion, or are we arguing over how the rules work and starting a rules clarity discussion to encourage a rules clarity and possible change in the BRCS?

[geeman]

At 11:33 AM 2/26/2008, rugor wrote:

>I am not sure there is agreement that Scions do keep their Bloodline
>when ressurected. I think, again, that there are a lot of vague
>areas in BR so that a GM can take it in whatever direction he wishes.

Individual DMs can homebrew however they like, but if the question is
whether nor not scions are supposed to keep their bloodline after
death the original materials do eventually get around to saying
specifically that a character who is "resurrected... retains his bloodline...."

At 11:01 AM 2/26/2008, ploesch wrote:

>--Inanimate objects can gain a bloodline

I think that one`s debatable, and I`d argue against it. There are
examples of inanimate objects holding a bloodline as a sort of
vessel. There are examples of inanimate objects aiding or impairing
the transfer of bloodline through bloodtheft or investiture. There
are examples of inanimate objects draining or otherwise hampering
bloodline. Actually holding a bloodline, though? The idea that
inanimate objects can "gain a bloodline" is really just a bad
description of inanimate objects acting as a conduit or storage for
the energies of bloodline

I don`t think inanimate objects gain a bloodline any more than a
defibrillator has a heartbeat or an incubator gives life. We have
pretty simple magics in D&D that allow inanimate objects to become
living, thinking characters who can gain levels, etc. That`s just a
druid spell. Sure, it costs some XP but that`s nothing compared to
the sacrifice of a bunch of gods in a massive explosion that altered
the face of the planet. Wouldn`t the energies that represent the
blood of the gods, gives characters supernatural abilities, and that
allows them to rule domains in some new, divinely inspired way at
least convey intelligence and consciousness to an inanimate object
were those objects truly capable of "gaining a bloodline" in a meaningful way?

Gary

[ploesch]

irdeggman points out in post #7 that according to BRCS rules even objects can (rarely) absorb a portion of the divine essence of a violently slain Scion.

Which is what I was reffering to.

So according to 2E rules a scion retains their bloodline if ressurected. Which means that Divine essense or spark doesn't die with the scion.

According to BRCS objects can gain bloodlines.

So it stands to reason that a Scion that dies with their bloodline intact could be raised as an intelligent undead with access to their bloodline abilities. An arguent could be made in this case for a corruption of that blood since the body would be animated by forces from the shadow world. The people would certainly assume the scion to be corrupted, but as GM's we know not everything in the SW is corrupt, so this should be left up to individual GM's for story advancement.

It also stands to reason that an intelligent undead could gain a bloodline if they tried to, and could be the target of an investiture.

Therefore, IMO, the lack of (non awnshegh) undead Regents is more Role Playing limitation than a rules barrier. They would be considered an abomination and destroyed by the good people of Cerilia.

For unintelligent undead, I'd say that without the intelligence to use their blood abilities and since their blood cannot be spillt they may still contain some divine spark in the body, but it is not reachable except maybe with tighmaevril (sp?) weapons.

That, or perhaps the mechanics need to be reconsidered for 4E. Personally I think there are enough RP obstacles that having a bunch of undead regents running around would never happen.

[kgauck]

So it stands to reason that a Scion that dies with their bloodline intact could be raised as an intelligent undead with access to their bloodline abilities. [...] The people would certainly assume the scion to be corrupted, but as GM's we know not everything in the SW is corrupt, so this should be left up to individual GM's for story advancement.
This may be true in general, but I think its safe to say that whatever is animating undead is evil. This kind of action would seem to be one of those definitionally evil things.

[ploesch]

This may be true in general, but I think its safe to say that whatever is animating undead is evil. This kind of action would seem to be one of those definitionally evil things.


Agreed. That doesn't mean that the now intelligent undead scion is evil though. Just that the vast majority of the people that realize the Scions situation will assume so.

Which is why I think it's an excellent plot and story line. The sypathetic undead Scion must find a way to restore true life to their undead husk. Raise dead would only destroy them, perhaps a full ressurection would work, but you might as well be looking for a wish. The wish might be easier to come by since any priest powerful enough to ressurect the scion would likely destroy them before they could ever explain their situation.

[geeman]

At 11:24 AM 2/28/2008, ploesch wrote:

>According to BRCS objects can gain bloodlines.
>
>So it stands to reason that a Scion that dies with their bloodline
>intact could be raised as an intelligent undead with access to their
>bloodline abilities. An arguent could be made in this case for a
>corruption of that blood since the body would be animated by forces
>from the shadow world. The people would certainly assume the scion
>to be corrupted, but as GM`s we know not everything in the SW is
>corrupt, so this should be left up to individual GM`s for story advancement.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but... this would seem to be
the kind of thing that wasn`t really fully thought through. The BRCS
is really silent on the elaborations of this concept, and that
particular one is problematic.

>Personally I think there are enough RP obstacles that having a bunch
>of undead regents running around would never happen.

Never? The proliferation of undead is a theme in a lot of settings
and fantasy literature in which the power of the gods isn`t also
assumed to be part of the deal. Why wouldn`t be at least as many
undead regents as there are awnsheghlien regents if it`s possible for
them to have a bloodline?

We have awnsheghlien who`ve sprung up from canines, boars, and
apparently some sort of squid. Yet there are none that come from
undead, even though some awnsheghlien have changed into totemic forms
that mimic undead types.... Every race of the continent, even some
monsters and very rare kinds of creatures have a bloodline... but no
undead. That seems to bespeak the situation more directly than
something intimated but not said explicitly in the BRCS update.

Personally, I`m never all that happy with a strictly role-playing
solution to a problem that is set up by game mechanics or setting
background. Role-playing has a role, but as the sole way out of
poorly conceived rules it`s weak. If a GM creates rules that have a
logical outcome then it strikes me as a wank to pull an end run
around that process by "role-playing" it away. It`s like having a
character wake up to find "it was all a dream." Weak.

Gary

[ploesch]

IMO, the game was originally written with the idea that when you died you lost your bloodline. It was never particularly clear in the original material, but up until I started reading this thread I always played that way. With that in mind, none of the scions in the original material are actually undead. It could also simply be an oversight.

However, in the intervening years, and even some of the material written for the original game, this concept changed, but no one had a reason to go back and recreate the regents.

So I really don't think we can assume by implication that it is impossible for an undead creature to become a scion based on there not being any undead Regents in the core books.

That would be like assuming that tasers don't exist because a police manual from 1940 doesn't mention them.

The BRCS rules, and even the original rules do not exclude the possibility, so if a GM wishes to introduce that aspect to their game there really isn't any argument against it.

The rarity could be explained in many ways. First off, having a bloodline at all is what 1% of the population. The simple fact that unintelligent undead (the most common form) couldn't take advantage of their blood abilities, and that most scions that would have a chance to become intelligent undead probably lost their bloodlines in a violent death are enough reason to assume that an intelligent undead with a blood line would be nearly non-existant. Add to that the fear of the shadow world that Cerilians harbor as well as the hatred for everything unnatural the elves have, it's not suprising that intelligent undead, even if they managed to keep/gain a bloodline, wouldn't be rushing out to become a landed regent. They would be trying to keep their condition a secret.

I do agree with others that there are allot of game balance implications in allowing Undead scions. This is one of those things that while the rules don't say you can't, it's something that should be carefully considered.

Finally, if you don't want them to exist in your game, simply say that the forces animating the body destroy the divine spark that allows a character to become a scion. That isn't in the rules, but it will suffice to prevent undead regents.

[AndrewTall]

I'm not sure where I read it, but given bloodtheft can result in at most half the bloodline being stolen the suggestion was that half the bloodline remained in the dead body - so if resurrected the body might have half its original bloodline. That sounds like the old 2e rules though.

I'd probably rule undead out in a game I played, or rule that instead of rising as a true undead the scion rises as an awnshegh of similar vein but don't really see anything in the rules specifically banning undead scions.

[kgauck]

I don't think its a good idea to be too firm either way. The game is supposed to make things possible without mandating that this or that option is required. The Gorgon has a stat block so that people can fight him, but you obviously don't have to make a combat with the Gorgon necessary.

Personally, I'm not keen on undead scions on this side of the evenascence, but if someone wants to take their game in that direction its prudent to provide some explanation for how to go about that.

[Pauper]

Greetings,


who cares? One group finds it good, so use it. The next dislikes it so leave it out. Blooded Undead. Aasimar blackguards were rare too.

Contribute to the download page and evidence that you ain't just here to fish and plagiarize other peoples ideas?


:eek:

[irdeggman]

Greetings,


who cares? One group finds it good, so use it. The next dislikes it so leave it out. Blooded Undead. Aasimar blackguards were rare too.

Contribute to the download page and evidence that you ain't just here to fish and plagiarize other peoples ideas?


:eek:


Why be so snippy?

No reason for it, IMO.

The OP asked if it was possible.

People answered, basically that the 2nd ed 3.5 rules left it "open".

Then people chimed in how they would or would not do it (and why). Absolutely nothing wrong with that, in fact that is one of the core values of this forum - free exchange of ideas.

[manetherin]

Another option would be to take a page from Eberron. In that setting there's a form of positive-energy-based necromancy practiced by one of the elven races.

I forget what the practice is called or what they refer to the end result as, but basically it's a way for the race to take the whole 'honored elder' concept into extremes, with a ruling body of elves in dead bodies continuously flooded with so much positive energy that they can continue to exist as intelligent self-willed (insert undead-but-not-undead name here)

With a quirk of the Invulnerability ability which I think someone touched on earlier, the same could be accomplished in Birthright. Say the body is so crucially damaged or even completely eradicated it can no longer support natural life (or is going to take eons for the Invulnerability trait to regenerate). A DM could rule that the blood ability itself could keep the body together and the soul tied to it since that character's specific death conditions haven't been met, resulting in a fully self-aware intelligent and Blooded being in a body that doesn't need to breathe or eat and maybe drops little rotting bits every now and then, depending on how the player and DM want to flavor things. No shadow world involved, the character's own strength of will and divine bloodline keep him going.

Could even tie it in with the other ideas mentioned here. He's not undead, but none of his neighbors know the difference or care, so he's still got to hide his condition somehow or have the mob at the door with torches and pitchforks. I would even tie his bloodline score and/or RP accumulation directly to his appearance, so that the closer he is to his RP cap the more natural he appears, and remaining low on RP for extended periods of time could result in the beginning of a transformation into Awnie/Ershie