Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Blooded Undead?

  1. #21
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  2. #22
    Senior Member ploesch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    182
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.
    When you play the game of thrones you win or you die.
    George R. R. Martin - A song of Ice and Fire

  3. #23
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ploesch View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  5. #25
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    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.


    Duane Eggert

  6. #26
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    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).

  7. #27
    Senior Member ploesch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    182
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.
    When you play the game of thrones you win or you die.
    George R. R. Martin - A song of Ice and Fire

  8. #28
    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.
    The better part of valor is discretion

  9. #29
    Senior Member ploesch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    182
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rugor View Post
    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?
    When you play the game of thrones you win or you die.
    George R. R. Martin - A song of Ice and Fire

  10. #30
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Undead Legion
    By ryancaveney in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 05-20-2007, 04:58 PM
  2. Undead Legion
    By Mantyluoto in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-06-2006, 06:17 PM
  3. Blooded characters in Anuire
    By Robbie in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 09-12-2005, 12:42 PM
  4. Blooded Level Adjustment
    By Magian in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-08-2004, 11:21 PM
  5. Tragic Undead
    By destowe in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-24-2003, 03:25 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.