Undead Legion

[Jaleela]

Hmm, in this world corporeal undead don't exist - if there was a chance that some foul spirit from the Shadow World would steal the body of your friend after they died, wouldn't you give them a clean, final ending? Would the religions not even demand it to prevent the body being so despoiled? Simple practicality suggests that one vampire plague would make cremation not just the norm, but mandatory...

It is worth remembering that despite all the guff about eternal truths many of the 'health and safety' aspects of religion are very mutable things - when such a religious law causes serious problems for the faithful it gets changed (it may take a few generations but a more 'rational' interpretation will emerge) - if as a regent half your population got butchered by a member of the Lost and their undead legions, would you just bury the dead for the next such lich to summon as his allies?

Kriesha has a bit of a problem with fire as written, but Laerme's faithful can be taught that fire is a harsh destructive force and Avani's that books burn in fire... The reverence of how the brutality of nature winnows out the weak could easily allow for fire-revering priests of Kriesha in Khinasi say - the Vos and Rjurik where she is strongest clearly see the wrath of nature in ice due to climate - and her faithful might dispose of the faithful by feeding them to wild life (sharks, vultures, etc) or the like.

As far as the undead legion warcard goes remember how dirt cheap it is - no GB cost, not even RP under the standard rules... The unit should be dirt-cheap cannon fodder as that is what you are paying for. The spell admittedly costs a reasonable sum - but is still cheap by comparison to similar super-elite units.

Burial in hallowed ground, and by religious ritual is the standard folklore in our world to prevent such a thing. There would likely be similar rituals making a properly buried corpse in consecrated ground immune to reanimation.

[dalor]

I think the MAGIC makes the undead do what you want
them to...not an intelligence.


--- ryancaveney <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net
> message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
>
http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3800
>
> ryancaveney wrote:
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> The mindlessness of undead
> -----------------------------
>
>
>
> I`ve never been happy with this concept. I have
> personal and professional interests in psychology,
> neurobiology, and artificial intelligence, so of
> course I find the D&D treatment too simplistic.
> Setting all that aside, however, I think there is
> still a serious problem: the official rules are
> inconsistent with themselves.
>
> The MM nonability section says "any creature that
> can think, learn or remember has at least one point
> of intelligence." Therefore, since it is possible
> to give orders -- which must be remembered long
> enough to be carried out -- to the "mindless" undead
> such as skeletons and zombies, as well as to golems,
> all these creatures necessarily must have an
> Intelligence score of at least one. In fact, since
> they can understand *any* simple order immediately
> without needing to first be extensively trained, as
> animals do, I think they have to have a basic
> understanding of human language, which requires an
> Intelligence score of at least three.
>
> What they truly lack is not intelligence, but
> *volition*. They are not free-willed, as animals
> are. They are much better than animals at figuring
> out what it is you want them to do, but they will do
> *nothing* on their own -- with animals, the key to
> training is getting them to *stop* doing what they
> want, so they have time to do what you want.
> Programmable undead don`t want anything. You have
> to tell them what to do, but they do whatever you
> tell them (as long as it`s simple, which implies
> their intelligence is at least somewhat below the
> human average of ten). Volition is not an ability
> score, nor should it be. Intelligence should be
> separated from volition, because anything that can
> successfully follow orders has to have nonzero Int,
> just in terms of the PHB/MM definition thereof.
>
>
>
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> this provokes some ruminations on spirits. There has
> always been a spirit world for the Birthright world,
> although it has long since been at least partially
> under the sway of the Shadow. Summoning animated
> whatever, is just summoning a spirit of the right
> type to direct the thing you are animated.
> -----------------------------
>
>
>
> I am a big fan of this interpretation, especially in
> Cerilia. The question then becomes, what types of
> spirits are available, what are their
> characteristics, and how hard is it to get access to
> the better ones? For golems, at least, this answer
> is simple: the MM explicitly states, "the animating
> force for a golem is a spirit from the Elemental
> Plane of Earth." Therefore, the obvious thing to do
> is give all golems the same Int as earth elementals,
> which is either 4 or 6 (depending on size). Undead
> should then obviously be animated by spirits
> summoned from the Shadow World (the Negative Energy
> Plane in standard D&D). How smart should they be?
> Simple undead are a lot cheaper and easier to make
> than golems (though they also aren`t nearly as
> powerful), so they should be dumber; I am inclined
> to pick 3 for skeletons and zombies, and 6 for
> golems.
>
>
>
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> Even mundane things have a spirit. This is what a
> commune with nature spell is communing with, or when
> you speak to animals or plants. Rocks have a spirt,
> trees, rivers, what have you. There are more
> intelligent and powerful spirits that can inhabit
> these things and they can follow simple instructions
> without any initiative of their own (Animate Rope)
> or basic instructions in a limited context (Animal
> Messenger).
> -----------------------------
>
>
>
> This is in fact the only alternative I readily
> accept to my preferred model of magic as a branch of
> particle physics: this is magic as a branch of
> diplomacy and politics (excellent modern literary
> examples of which include Michael Moorcock`s Elric
> saga and Katherine Kerr`s Deverry books).
>
>
>
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> Eventually you can summon spirits that can do much
> more, up to the most powerful elementals or high
> level summonings. Better spirits animating undead
> are like adding hit dice, although at some point
> (ghouls and such) you get pretty good funtioning
> undead because they must have high quality spirits
> for animation.
> -----------------------------
>
>
>
> Exactly so. Even for low-grade undead, however, one
> must wonder whether the spirits, like animals, *do*
> have some wants of their own, but are restrained by
> the summoning spells which prevent them from acting
> without orders. The classic D&D example of this is
> the Frankenstein`s Monster-inspired view of golems
> as chafing at their restraints, and eager to turn on
> their creator/tormentors at the first opportunity.
> I am inclined to think that low-level undead have
> some inbuilt preferences, too; for example, I think
> undead will always defend themselves unless
> specifically ordered not to, because they are driven
> by spirits who want to kill things. Similarly, one
> would have to work very hard to prevent them causing
> significant collateral damage anywhere they go.
> Still not free will, but a noticeable mean streak
> coloring the way they implement the orders they are
> given. Some desire for self-destruction may well
> also be present in some of them; one reason they may
> march straight off of cliffs is not so much that
> they are too stupid to avoid it, but rather that
> they are happy not to have been ordered not to. I
> think this interpretation makes minor undead much
> more interesting and entertaining, so I heartily
> endorse it. It also provides a real justification
> for the 3E limits on number of undead one can
> control; if they really were completely passive
> constructs, there is no reason one couldn`t have
> arbitrarily many of them around.
>
>
> Ryan
>
>

>
> Birthright-l Archives:
> http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to
> LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>
>




__________________________________________________ __________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail

[AndrewTall]

I think the MAGIC makes the undead do what you want
them to...not an intelligence.

The question is how the magic lets you control them - as the method has an impact on how many undead can be summoned and controlled, the quality of orders that you can give to them (can they handle IF/THAN/ELSE statements?) the likelihood of them escaping control or perverting orders by following the letter of them rather than the spirit, the chance that if your necromancer enters the Shadow Wrld he will meet some VERY peeved spirits who spent the last year chained to a rotting husk doing the necromancers bidding...

Yes you can simply say 'it happens - duh', but you are are then left with a DM rule required for every single interaction with the undead - whereas if you lay out a coherent framework for summoning in the first place, the interactions and so on all follow logically.

So if I use a spirit approach I might say that control requires a diplomacy check (perhaps with benefits for knowledge/shadow world) - meaning that all commands fall under the usual interaction rules, if I say that they are mindless then all commands fall under a straight int check - although you might make a skill 'control automata' for 'professional' summoners, etc.

Otherwise you need to build the limits on summoning directly into the spells - a caster can control at most int*2 undead, or int*100 undead per regency point spent on control in the domain turn, a unit has a 10% chance of suffering a hit each turn from random damage and cannot recover hits, etc.

The alternative is to watch a group of elf players say 'I spend 10 years raising a 50k undead legion from the bodies in the Icemarch and head south to eradicate the human infestation' - from their viewpoint its far more practical than risking their own lives and 10 years is nothing really to an immortal...

Something limits the ability to create undead legions, summon monsters etc - or every regent would have a (not so) small army of them with peasants taught by the priests that if one is not absolutely faithful in life (rattle rattle) then one will serve also in death, until the peasants debt to society for the life they were given is paid. - why pay peasants to work the fields, fight, etc when undead can do it for free and possibly better?

[ShadowMoon]

The question is how the magic lets you control them - as the method has an impact on how many undead can be summoned and controlled, the quality of orders that you can give to them (can they handle IF/THAN/ELSE statements?) the likelihood of them escaping control or perverting orders by following the letter of them rather than the spirit, the chance that if your necromancer enters the Shadow Wrld he will meet some VERY peeved spirits who spent the last year chained to a rotting husk doing the necromancers bidding...
Yes you can simply say 'it happens - duh', but you are are then left with a DM rule required for every single interaction with the undead - whereas if you lay out a coherent framework for summoning in the first place, the interactions and so on all follow logically.
So if I use a spirit approach I might say that control requires a diplomacy check (perhaps with benefits for knowledge/shadow world) - meaning that all commands fall under the usual interaction rules, if I say that they are mindless then all commands fall under a straight int check - although you might make a skill 'control automata' for 'professional' summoners, etc.

Controlling Undead is a part of the spell. So no additional actions are required or skills. Mindless Undead (skeletons and zombies) have to have action-to-action input by the caster. Means they will continue doing last command indefinitely till caster orders new one.

I would set a difference between Shamanistic and Necromantic approach to how this happens. Shaman would probably summon lesser spirits to automate the corpse (mindless undead), or commune with greater spirits to animate (greater undead); but Necromancer would tap into the Shadow World, tune to Negative Energy flow, ripple it and bind himself to the Negative Energy, acting as a sort of a gateway, then he would link himself with a number of target corpses, so he could mentally shape/desire his will upon now animated undead, using his own life force as a controller, negative channel as a power. If he goes away enough to break the link, because he is the Negative Energy beacon, link fails, and corpses fall. This is how I interpret Animate Dead and Legion of Dead (Realm Spell). So Legion of Dead is in a way enhanced Animate Dead, enhanced by the divine bloodline and power of the Mebhaighl. But on the other hand personal link with the Undead is limited, because spell is empowered with the Mebhaighl, and centred on the caster, so caster needs to be very close to the Undead Regiment because he cannot channel such powerful force on greater distances. Legion of the Dead says that caster can create more than one Legion, so I presume that with experience he can expand his area of influence, but not enough to create them and leave them alone.
Create Undead is similar to this process (Animate Dead), but caster binds negative energy channel to the corpse permanently, empower it with his own life force or some others (sacrifice) to awaken it. Depending on the sacrifice, undead will have more or less of intelligence/personality. Sacrifice is important because with it caster opens the link with an afterlife and rips the soul back to material plane, binding it to the corpse and connecting it to the Negative Energy link so he could use it. Stronger the sacrifice and skilled the Necromancer's technique soul is more pure, more preserved, thus intelligence and personality more closer to the original host. Caster uses that Negative Energy link, the one that keeps life force trapped in the corpse bounded, as input, so he can tune in and give his commands to the intelligent Undead (Like Compulsion effect of the Enchantment school), but if he leave them alone they would act on their own. Depending on the personality awakened, some would be self-destructive, others would enjoy "immortality" and their freedom from afterlife, and chance to punish their former adversaries; but that is up to DM, if he wants to use this as role-play addition.

Otherwise you need to build the limits on summoning directly into the spells - a caster can control at most int*2 undead, or int*100 undead per regency point spent on control in the domain turn, a unit has a 10% chance of suffering a hit each turn from random damage and cannot recover hits, etc.

Using Regency to temporary bolster the Undead sounds VERY interesting. ^^;
For some time now, I am thinking of creating Regency Feats, that could influence actions by expanding RPs. Similar to Action Points Feats or even to Divine Feats.

The alternative is to watch a group of elf players say 'I spend 10 years raising a 50k undead legion from the bodies in the Icemarch and head south to eradicate the human infestation' - from their viewpoint its far more practical than risking their own lives and 10 years is nothing really to an immortal...

Elves shun Necromancy. From their point of view its the worst abomination to the natural cycle, and Gaea flow. And still there is limit how much energy one could channel for all these undead, because caster acts as a gateway. To much energy exposure could have severe consequences, like turning him into a Lich, or utterly destroying him.

Something limits the ability to create undead legions, summon monsters etc - or every regent would have a (not so) small army of them with peasants taught by the priests that if one is not absolutely faithful in life (rattle rattle) then one will serve also in death, until the peasants debt to society for the life they were given is paid. - why pay peasants to work the fields, fight, etc when undead can do it for free and possibly better?

Regent's own life essence (not being a divine power), as well as his experience, and his willing to take a risk limits his abilities for greater channelling.
Undead decay so their families wont be very happy seeing them rot in the fields, they spread plagues, so none would like to eat something an undead cultured. And it takes an evil, or at least very specific, religion to approve that serving in unlife policy.

[kgauck]

Is the Spectral Scion undead? Does it channel negative energy?

Are ghosts, spectres, and shadows animated ectoplasm, or are they spirits?

Do some undead form of their own accord? If the process involves a spell and channeling negative energy, how does this work?

It seems to me that at least some of the undead are better explained, and their color descriptions better accord with a shamanistic approach to undead. The other undead, both corporeal and intelligent and corporeal and unintelligent don't seem any better served by a non-shamanistic approach.

I can speak of negative energy in a shamanistic approach, so no rules function is lost in this interpretation. Negative energy is the unlife force.

The new book Complete Champion gives me character options like View the Spirit World in which a barbarian could replace their uncanny dodge class feature with the ability to peer into the Spirit World for 1/2 their barbarian levels in rounds. Rangers can swap for Spiritual Connection and Spirit Guide. Making use of these options, and they are options, is easier if you take the shamanistic approach.

[dalor]

But everything is already covered. Caster (of lvl x)
can summon y number of units for z amount of time. It
IS indeed up to the individual DM and players to come
to any additional factors they may want to add.

I`m not sure why everyone is making this so
complicated honestly.

I`m sure it is fun to talk about, but when we start
adding so many additional factors, it only leaves even
more to be explained...and more to remember when the
essence of the game to me is to simply have fun.

Simplicity is best in this case I think.

--- AndrewTall <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> I think the MAGIC makes the undead do what you want
> them to...not an intelligence.
>
>
> -----------------------------
>
>
>
> The question is how the magic lets you control them
> - as the method has an impact on how many undead can
> be summoned and controlled, the quality of orders
> that you can give to them (can they handle
> IF/THAN/ELSE statements?) the likelihood of them
> escaping control or perverting orders by following
> the letter of them rather than the spirit, the
> chance that if your necromancer enters the Shadow
> Wrld he will meet some VERY peeved spirits who spent
> the last year chained to a rotting husk doing the
> necromancers bidding...
>
> Yes you can simply say `it happens - duh`, but you
> are are then left with a DM rule required for every
> single interaction with the undead - whereas if you
> lay out a coherent framework for summoning in the
> first place, the interactions and so on all follow
> logically.
>
> So if I use a spirit approach I might say that
> control requires a diplomacy check (perhaps with
> benefits for knowledge/shadow world) - meaning that
> all commands fall under the usual interaction rules,
> if I say that they are mindless then all commands
> fall under a straight int check - although you might
> make a skill `control automata` for `professional`
> summoners, etc.
>
> Otherwise you need to build the limits on summoning
> directly into the spells - a caster can control at
> most int*2 undead, or int*100 undead per regency
> point spent on control in the domain turn, a unit
> has a 10% chance of suffering a hit each turn from
> random damage and cannot recover hits, etc.
>
> The alternative is to watch a group of elf players
> say `I spend 10 years raising a 50k undead legion
> from the bodies in the Icemarch and head south to
> eradicate the human infestation` - from their
> viewpoint its far more practical than risking their
> own lives and 10 years is nothing really to an
> immortal...
>
> Something limits the ability to create undead
> legions, summon monsters etc - or every regent would
> have a (not so) small army of them with peasants
> taught by the priests that if one is not absolutely
> faithful in life (rattle rattle) then one will serve
> also in death, until the peasants debt to society
> for the life they were given is paid. - why pay
> peasants to work the fields, fight, etc when undead
> can do it for free and possibly better?



__________________________________________________ __________________________________Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you`re surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php

[ShadowMoon]

Is the Spectral Scion undead? Does it channel negative energy?

Spectral Scion is Undead, much like a ghost, but it's focus is bloodline, like special unique Birthright-like ghost type. Since it is spirit of the dead, bound to material world by some unfinished buisness, it is an undead, thus fueled by Negative Energy.

Are ghosts, spectres, and shadows animated ectoplasm, or are they spirits?

Ghosts, spectres, wraiths, etc. are undead, again fueled with the Negative Energy. They are motivated by their own twisted echoes of their former conscience, animated by the Negative Energy. Ectoplasm is just material manifestation of such spirit, like some form of material charge, when Negative Energy colides with the Material Plane. In my campaign all Negative Energy manifestations result in ectoplasm charge. Shadows are undead, powered with Negative Energy, created through the Seeming.

Do some undead form of their own accord? If the process involves a spell and channeling negative energy, how does this work?

Many spirit-like undead form on their own accord, and they might all be different, but all share the same process; they are all souls of the dead that became trapped in material plane, and their existence creates Negative Energy link that continues to fuel their presence. Many spells mimic natural and supernatural processes. Substitute caster as a gate focus with their conscience, and You get the same effect.

It seems to me that at least some of the undead are better explained, and their color descriptions better accord with a shamanistic approach to undead. The other undead, both corporeal and intelligent and corporeal and unintelligent don't seem any better served by a non-shamanistic approach.

I can speak of negative energy in a shamanistic approach, so no rules function is lost in this interpretation. Negative energy is the unlife force.

The new book Complete Champion gives me character options like View the Spirit World in which a barbarian could replace their uncanny dodge class feature with the ability to peer into the Spirit World for 1/2 their barbarian levels in rounds. Rangers can swap for Spiritual Connection and Spirit Guide. Making use of these options, and they are options, is easier if you take the shamanistic approach.

Well all DMs are encouraged to devise and detail their campaigns, so whatever works for You and Your players, it is good for Your campaign.

[AndrewTall]

But everything is already covered. Caster (of lvl x)
can summon y number of units for z amount of time. It
IS indeed up to the individual DM and players to come
to any additional factors they may want to add.

I`m not sure why everyone is making this so
complicated honestly.

The problem is that the spell doesn't give any real detail of the capabilities of the units beyond combat stats - such as the ability to act independently, endure harsh conditions, etc. To work that out you either need to agree how the spell works or continually make rules judgments on what the undead are and what they can do each time you come across a new situation, etc.

Personally I think that the decay rules are crucial - does the negative energy prevent mold, etc growing? Does a zombie decay to a skeleton? Does a skeleton decay to dust? Over what time frame? Is an undead unit vulnerable to a modified plant growth spell focused on molds, etc? The decay rules have a substantial impact on the ability to slowly build up undead armies over a time period and so a strong impact on the balance of the unit.

The problem has reduced from 2e to 3e due to the new cap on undead commanded when created by the L5 spell, but there is no similar limit on golems for example where the same problem exists (although golem creation spells are non-core). Even so a high level caster can easily have multiple legions of dead spells active any any given time (the spell duration is 1 month + 1 month per level) causing the impossibly-huge invincible army problem.


In terms of RP cost, I'd make one necessary for the maintenance on any undead unit - so if you animate enough undead to make a unit you pay to maintain it just as you would for a standard living unit - although that would probably reduce the cost of legion of dead slightly to balance out.

Elves shun Necromancy. From their point of view its the worst abomination to the natural cycle, and Gaea flow. And still there is limit how much energy one could channel for all these undead, because caster acts as a gateway. To much energy exposure could have severe consequences, like turning him into a Lich, or utterly destroying him.

I'd note that if you are using a shamanic system for the magic then the elves are arguably conjuration, but in any event some elves (Tuar Annwyn and Rhoubhe leap to mind) wouldn't hesitate if they thought they could kill enough humans with the undead to justify the harm to the land.

In terms of the natural cycle they are merely delaying it slightly - after exterminating the humans they will let the undead collapse leaving the land cleansed of the human taint such as cities, bridges and walls - in the long term its a huge benefit to nature - and as the only souls tampered with a human (whose souls are chained to the gods anyway so never in reality free from an elven perspective) the moral downside is minor. The reason I suggested elves though was simply the time perspective - if you can create numbers of undead over a prolonged period the necromantic issues should subside (although you need somewhere to store them where they can't wander off) - the Lost would have been a better example.

The lichdom point is interesting - a Siebharrin (sp?) sort of thing. the problem however is with those such aS the Lost - high level casters already either undead or close to it. what stops the Raven summoning half a dozen units+ of undead per month for a few months then conquering - the payroll cost saving outweighs the spell cost and the undead are unstoppable based on the current stats...

Undead decay so their families wont be very happy seeing them rot in the fields, they spread plagues, so none would like to eat something an undead cultured. And it takes an evil, or at least very specific, religion to approve that serving in unlife policy.

I would say that a house rule to the effect that 'undead inhibit growth' seems reasonable to prevent skeletal farm workers - the disease point is one for zombies, etc only - skeletons are presumably reasonably free of such like after a few days in the fields with the crows.

As to the religion point I disagree - it merely takes a religion which believes that ultimately people belong to their god and so must serve as commanded by that gods servants - most people see that sort of thinking as wrong nowadays but historically many cultures have endorsed similar viewpoints. You can be sure that if skeletal workers are possible, the vast economic benefits will swiftly ensure that churches opposed to using undead are marginalised. (Basically they are 'free slaves' - they don't need feeding, clothing or housing, never tire, never rebel, etc.)

I can certainly see families objecting at first - but if you start with enemy bodies, then criminals, etc the idea of service after death could easily slowly become acceptable throughout society - particularly if the family was paid some compensation '2 shilling for a live labourer, 5 pennies for one dead' would go a long way to making the peasantry accept such a policy - they need to put bread on the table after all. Even if families object, the Aztecs for example went to war to gain sacrifices, similar systems could arise to gain guilt-free skeletons.

The fact that I don't want such major alterations to the campaign means I need to find a way of limiting the use of undead legions - and I dislike flat bans on mindless undead as they are quite core - apart from anything else the odd invasion by the Lost can enliven a lacklustre campaign by breaking up alliances and so on. So making the undead maliciously rebellious, exultant in destruction, expensive to maintain (say remove the spell limit but increase RP cost by 1 per season to reflect more power necessary to prevent decay), making cremation commonplace, etc, etc allow the setting to be preserved without having a major hole in believability.

Hmm. It's possible that I'm thinking about this too much

[ShadowMoon]

But everything is already covered. Caster (of lvl x)
can summon y number of units for z amount of time. It
IS indeed up to the individual DM and players to come
to any additional factors they may want to add.

I`m not sure why everyone is making this so
complicated honestly.

I`m sure it is fun to talk about, but when we start
adding so many additional factors, it only leaves even
more to be explained...and more to remember when the
essence of the game to me is to simply have fun.

Simplicity is best in this case I think.

I agree that KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) system seems best most of the time. It is up to DM and players. We (me and my crew) like complexity and somewhat realistic RPG approach. We consider our campaign almost as an alternate reality, like a living story, not as a saturday night table game...

So KISS doesn't work for us...

[ConjurerDragon]

AndrewTall schrieb:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3800
> AndrewTall wrote:
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
>
>
> Cremation: Not necessary. Even 50 years ago in our world most catholics
> would be very uneasy to even consider creamation because of the belief
> that one day god will let both soul and body rise. Or any egyptian would
> be horrified to think that his body would be destroyed after his death.
> In our game I think that cremation could be practiced and even promoted
> by Avani (as Basaia was the godess of fire) and Laerme but few other
> gods. Perhaps Kriesha collects the bodies of her dead faithful in a
> frozen sea in Vosgaard for later use - but to give them to the element
> of her greatest adversary? ;-)
> -----------------------------
>
> Hmm, in this world corporeal undead don`t exist - if there was a chance that some foul spirit from the Shadow World would steal the body of your friend after they died, wouldn`t you give them a clean, final ending? Would the religions not even demand it to prevent the body being so despoiled? Simple practicality suggests that one vampire plague would make cremation not just the norm, but mandatory...
>
Not in my opinion. Depending on faith destroying the body might result
in a lost soul, a deceased person rising as a ghost or whatever. And
even in worlds where such undead exist people like to store their
honoured dead in a mausoleum. I remember one example of a computer game
where Lord Soth raided some temple cellars to steal the bodies of the
fallen knights to raise them as death knights - Death Knights of Krynn?

> It is worth remembering that despite all the guff about eternal truths many of the `health and safety` aspects of religion are very mutable things - when such a religious law causes serious problems for the faithful it gets changed (it may take a few generations but a more `rational` interpretation will emerge) - if as a regent half your population got butchered by a member of the Lost and their undead legions, would you just bury the dead for the next such lich to summon as his allies?
>
There is a wide gap between cremation and no care at all for a deceased
and buried body. The graveyard could be consecrated. Holy Water
sprinkled. In case of rising vampires a wooden stake through the heart -
there are many examples of those left living caring in some way for the
bodies of their dead to protect them.