PDA

View Full Version : Skeleton Horses



Jack Zander
2010-09-06, 12:46 PM
So I'm playing a necromancer in my group and I bought 4 light horses, slayed them and raised them as skeletons. I doubt their stats will ever come into play (they are simply for having mounts that don't need to rest or get fatigued after 8 hours). However, I'm confused as to how their attacks work. It looks as though a light horse is not proficient with its natural attack. If that's the case, then is the skeleton horse not proficient with its hooves either?

Starfols
2010-09-06, 12:54 PM
I believe that's the case. Skeleton says you retain the natural attack, it doesn't say you have to be proficient. :smallsmile:

Zaydos
2010-09-06, 12:57 PM
It's not a question of proficiency, they're secondary natural weapons as opposed to primary ones. Which is actually slightly worse than non-proficiency (-5 instead of -4 and 1/2 strength to damage).

Jack Zander
2010-09-06, 01:08 PM
It's not a question of proficiency, they're secondary natural weapons as opposed to primary ones. Which is actually slightly worse than non-proficiency (-5 instead of -4 and 1/2 strength to damage).

Oh, that's where that extra -1 and half damage were coming from. :smallredface:

I still don't quite understand though. Light horses don't have a primary attack listed.

Zaydos
2010-09-06, 01:18 PM
They don't have one. The theory is they aren't really built for combat.

Jack Zander
2010-09-06, 01:23 PM
They don't have one. The theory is they aren't really built for combat.

I figured that's what the case was. Like I said, I doubt they'll be used for combat too, but I just wanted to stat them out just in case.

So how do undead mounts work in general? I assume there is no problem riding them into combat if needed. Does the mount have to be a warhorse in order to let you attack from it without a ride check, or does the skeleton's nature of being an emotionless freak of nature allow you to forgo that check?

Yorrin
2010-09-06, 01:27 PM
I figured that's what the case was. Like I said, I doubt they'll be used for combat too, but I just wanted to stat them out just in case.

So how do undead mounts work in general? I assume there is no problem riding them into combat if needed. Does the mount have to be a warhorse in order to let you attack from it without a ride check, or does the skeleton's nature of being an emotionless freak of nature allow you to forgo that check?

This isn't actually covered by the rules. As a DM I'd say that you don't need the check because it's a mindless undead under your control. But I can see why someone would disagree with that. So, ask your DM...

Ernir
2010-09-06, 01:43 PM
There's nothing (that I know of) in the rules that prevents a skeletal horse from running all day long. It makes trips go by... very quickly. Make sure you have an opinion on that. :smalltongue:

Marnath
2010-09-06, 01:48 PM
The ride check is only partly to direct the beast, it's also to see if you manage to stay in the saddle, and that's all on you not your horse.

JoshuaZ
2010-09-06, 01:53 PM
This isn't actually covered by the rules. As a DM I'd say that you don't need the check because it's a mindless undead under your control. But I can see why someone would disagree with that. So, ask your DM...

There's a section in Libris Mortis that discusses rules for undead mounts in detail. I think making ride checks with undead mounts is discussed in there.

Greenish
2010-09-06, 02:01 PM
There's nothing (that I know of) in the rules that prevents a skeletal horse from running all day long. It makes trips go by... very quickly.Just remember to get a lot of extra padding on that saddle.

Marnath
2010-09-06, 02:03 PM
Just remember to get a lot of extra padding on that saddle.

I would think you'd have to make a check versus forced march if you rode all day, because riding is fatiguing.

Kaww
2010-09-06, 02:12 PM
That doesn't sound like a good way to travel. First as noted your saddle should be VERY WELL PADDED for this... :smalltongue:

Why not buy a wagon and rest while avoiding ride checks and similar problems we DMs enjoy inflicting upon people that figured out how to move whole day without fatigue or move at landspeed of 200ft/round without using higher lvl spells? :smallconfused:

P.S. Expect the horses to die (again) and wagon to be blown to smithereens asap.

herrhauptmann
2010-09-06, 02:20 PM
That doesn't sound like a good way to travel. First as noted your saddle should be VERY WELL PADDED for this... :smalltongue:

Why not buy a wagon and rest while avoiding ride checks and similar problems we DMs enjoy inflicting upon people that figured out how to move whole day without fatigue or move at landspeed of 200ft/round without using higher lvl spells? :smallconfused:

P.S. Expect the horses to die (again) and wagon to be blown to smithereens asap.

Yeah, be careful of clerics of both ends of the moral spectrum.
A good cleric would probably open up with a Turn Undead because anybody riding a skeletal steed is probably evil. Why waste time on a detect evil spell?
An evil cleric would probably open up with a Rebuke Undead, if he's aggressive, he'd kill you regardless of your alignment, and getting control of your mounts would be a good way to split the party so he can take you down piecemeal.

hamishspence
2010-09-07, 02:50 AM
A good cleric would probably open up with a Turn Undead because anybody riding a skeletal steed is probably evil. Why waste time on a detect evil spell?


That's not exactly what I would call a "good" cleric- even clerics are aware of the possibility of nonevil people making use of undead. Attacking someone even with Detect Evil is extremely iffy (especially since nonevil people, like nonevil clerics of evil gods, will ping, and not all Evil beings deserve to be attacked.)

Attacking somebody without any evidence of wrongdoing other than "they're riding on an undead" is even worse.

Kaww
2010-09-07, 04:32 AM
If I was a good cleric seeing some people riding towards me on skeletal horses do I:

a) spend 3 rounds determining who is evil and who is not

b) turn/destroy undead abominations and see where it goes

c) turn undead and whack the riders with my mace

I'd go with b) especially if Pelor is somewhere in this story...

hamishspence
2010-09-07, 05:12 AM
If they're in a city, and no-one else is batting an eye at the presence of undead horses, the least the cleric can do is make inquiries before resorting to violence- lest they be jailed for assault, destruction of property, and maybe even attempted murder.

Even in the wilds, unprovoked attacks are not really the way to go, for good characters (even those that think undead are abominations).

AvatarZero
2010-09-07, 06:33 AM
Would you really attack someone with undead horses? Animate Dead isn't a low level spell. What sort of power level are you running your campaign at if "Hey, look, a powerful necromancer. Let's attack him!" isn't a sign of suicidal stupidity?

Kaww
2010-09-07, 07:05 AM
Would you really attack someone with undead horses? Animate Dead isn't a low level spell. What sort of power level are you running your campaign at if "Hey, look, a powerful necromancer. Let's attack him!" isn't a sign of suicidal stupidity?

Yes it is suicidal for a low lvl cleric. Higher lvl clerics should risk it, if they are good. If you try to eradicate evil as long as you are not in any real danger you are neutral, not good.

The necromancer in this topic might be neutral since this is actually just a pragmatic solution to a nagging issue: I have to feed them, find water for them, find a relatively dry/warm place for them to stay, they need rest etc.

Most towns/villages , in majority of campaigns, frown upon the idea of undead walking around.

jmbrown
2010-09-07, 07:11 AM
You shouldn't worry about opposing clerics but druids. Slaying a living animal just to create a tireless mount is pretty high up in their list of "I'm going to exact Nature's wrath on your ass."

Snake-Aes
2010-09-07, 07:12 AM
Yes it is suicidal for a low lvl cleric. Higher lvl clerics should risk it, if they are good. If you try to eradicate evil as long as you are not in any real danger you are neutral, not good.

The necromancer in this topic might be neutral since this is actually just a pragmatic solution to a nagging issue: I have to feed them, find water for them, find a relatively dry/warm place for them to stay, they need rest etc.

Most towns/villages , in majority of campaigns, frown upon the idea of undead walking around.That's a separate context. If the horses are making everyone go "oh my god it's the end of the world we're gonna die hey let's give it a go since we'll die anyway", then the good guy stops the horses and inquires about what is going on.


the Good alignment, overall, is not about defaulting to Ecclesiastical Smiting.


Mr OP, everyone is always proficient with their natural weapons. Your horses have 2xhoof + 1xbite.

Kaww
2010-09-07, 07:21 AM
Nowhere have I stated that he should smite the riders. Only horses (answer b) not c) aka smite).

You know like: 'No you don't, not on my watch'.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-07, 07:22 AM
I didn't specify rider-smiting. Just smiting. You just don't default to that.

jmbrown
2010-09-07, 07:40 AM
I didn't specify rider-smiting. Just smiting. You just don't default to that.

If a mockery of life and embodiment of evil and negative energy is riding towards you at full speed you're going to pull your holy symbol out and do something about it.

It's like expecting a soldier not to shoot at an armed enemy advancing on his position. "Oh, he's carrying a gun and wearing the enemy's uniform but maybe he's not hostile lemme stand still and wave him on." Unless horrific monsters in your universe are so comic-book trivial that the average commoner sees one on his way to work every day, someone is going to raise arms and defeat it and the person riding it.

hamishspence
2010-09-07, 07:55 AM
But the original statement didn't specify that the undead horses were "being ridden toward the cleric at full speed".

"Attack all undead on sight- even those that are relatively harmless and being commanded by somebody" is pretty foolhardy- and may lead to charges of destruction of property.

The creation of undead can, in some areas of D&D worlds, be considered normal practice, not a "act that warrants immediate attack"- plus, the person may simply have bought the skeletal horse and not created it.

How tolerated undead are may vary- but except in the most rigidly anti-undead countries, the presence of undead animals wouldn't normally be "grounds for immediately attacking the guy owning them".

Good clerics should be more restrained than that.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-07, 07:57 AM
You are assuming too much.

hamishspence
2010-09-07, 08:02 AM
True- but I'm used to settings where undead creatures are used in countries that are not particularly malevolent- Eberron, Planescape.

I figure Good characters tend not to attack people- even undead-owning people, without a bit more provocation. And many of the arguments for why creating undead is problematic (lack of respect for the bodies of the dead, preventing dead beings from being affected by Raise Dead, and so on) don't really hold water in the case of undead animals.

jmbrown
2010-09-07, 08:04 AM
But the original statement didn't specify that the undead horses were "being ridden toward the cleric at full speed".

"Attack all undead on sight- even those that are relatively harmless and being commanded by somebody" is pretty foolhardy- and may lead to charges of destruction of property.

The creation of undead can, in some areas of D&D worlds, be considered normal practice, not a "act that warrants immediate attack"- plus, the person may simply have bought the skeletal horse and not created it.

How tolerated undead are may vary- but except in the most rigidly anti-undead countries, the presence of undead animals wouldn't normally be "grounds for immediately attacking the guy owning them".

Good clerics should be more restrained than that.

By traditional D&D standards, ever since the game's inception, undead are evil abominations of nature infused with the most negative energies in the universe. Undead means that you slew a living creature, dug up its remains (grave robbing has historically been a crime punishable by death), or desecrated its carcass (again, respecting the sanctity of death has always been a taboo in real-world history) by bringing un-life into it.

So unless your world is light-hearted or undead are actually neutral in alignment, D&D assumptions are that they're mindless creatures filled with negativity and hate. The very fact you have one is the equivalent of sneaking into a graveyard and pissing on the tombstones.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-07, 08:06 AM
True- but I'm used to settings where undead creatures are used in countries that are not particularly malevolent- Eberron, Planescape.

I figure Good characters tend not to attack people- even undead-owning people, without a bit more provocation. And many of the arguments for why creating undead is problematic (lack of respect for the bodies of the dead, preventing dead beings from being affected by Raise Dead, and so on) don't really hold water in the case of undead animals.

I was talking about the other guy.


By traditional D&D standards, ever since the game's inception, undead are evil abominations of nature infused with the most negative energies in the universe.
And that, itself, contradicts the system's logic. Their alignment literally trumps the rules. See the thread "necomancy:evil?" for further reference.

hamishspence
2010-09-07, 08:09 AM
Undead means that you slew a living creature, dug up its remains (grave robbing has historically been a crime punishable by death), or desecrated its carcass (again, respecting the sanctity of death has always been a taboo in real-world history) by bringing un-life into it.

None of these really apply to animals. Especially not if the animal was slain for other reasons than animating (food? Leather?), and the leftovers animated.

"Bringing negative energy into the world, making it a darker and more evil place" was the rationale for it being evil in BoVD.

Nonetheless, violence may still be an inappropriate response to minor evil deeds- even for clerics of Good deities. (casting an [Evil] spell is one of the least evil of evil acts).


I was talking about the other guy.

Good point.

Lolzords
2010-09-07, 08:25 AM
Why don't you make the skeleton horses a little horse costume each out of felt? :smallamused:

jmbrown
2010-09-07, 08:26 AM
I was talking about the other guy.


And that, itself, contradicts the system's logic. Their alignment literally trumps the rules. See the thread "necomancy:evil?" for further reference.

How? The whole necromancy/evil debate is ridiculous because since AD&D the game's alignment system was designed around moral absolutes. If this weren't the case, Gygax never would've deviated from the Chaos/Law/Neutral system of OD&D. Undead creatures, no matter what good you put them to, are evil. Their very existence contradicts everything that is life.


None of these really apply to animals. Especially not if the animal was slain for other reasons than animating (food? Leather?), and the leftovers animated.

"Bringing negative energy into the world, making it a darker and more evil place" was the rationale for it being evil in BoVD.

Nonetheless, violence may still be an inappropriate response to minor evil deeds- even for clerics of Good deities. (casting an [Evil] spell is one of the least evil of evil acts).

A respect for life doesn't apply to animals? Historically there are entire civilizations that revolve around animism or the respect for all natural beasts. A druid certainly wouldn't take kindly to an undead horse in his presence. I always hear the argument "well what if you put them to good?" And? It's the same moral dilemma as raising rats just to inject them with cancer. I'm no animal activist, but there's an eventual line you have to avoid crossing when you round up intelligent creatures just to do terrible things to them whether you find it laying on the side of the street or not.

I don't think you guys are putting this into context. If a horrific, mindless, horrid beast is riding in your direction bearing a rider, are you going to stop and wave him over? We're talking about a skeleton here. A cleric powerful enough to create one is likely able to destroy one instantly.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-07, 08:33 AM
How? The whole necromancy/evil debate is ridiculous because since AD&D the game's alignment system was designed around moral absolutes. If this weren't the case, Gygax never would've deviated from the Chaos/Law/Neutral system of OD&D. Undead creatures, no matter what good you put them to, are evil. Their very existence contradicts everything that is life. Animal-like intelligence and Mindless creatures cannot have alignments. Mindless undead must be neutral.

jmbrown
2010-09-07, 08:35 AM
Animal-like intelligence and Mindless creatures cannot have alignments. Mindless undead must be neutral.

And where does it state this because the rules for the skeleton template specifically say

Alignment: Always neutral evil.

Amphetryon
2010-09-07, 08:39 AM
How? The whole necromancy/evil debate is ridiculous because since AD&D the game's alignment system was designed around moral absolutes. If this weren't the case, Gygax never would've deviated from the Chaos/Law/Neutral system of OD&D. Undead creatures, no matter what good you put them to, are evil. Their very existence contradicts everything that is life.



A respect for life doesn't apply to animals? Historically there are entire civilizations that revolve around animism or the respect for all natural beasts. A druid certainly wouldn't take kindly to an undead horse in his presence. I always hear the argument "well what if you put them to good?" And? It's the same moral dilemma as raising rats just to inject them with cancer. I'm no animal activist, but there's an eventual line you have to avoid crossing when you round up intelligent creatures just to do terrible things to them whether you find it laying on the side of the street or not.

I don't think you guys are putting this into context. If a horrific, mindless, horrid beast is riding in your direction bearing a rider, are you going to stop and wave him over? We're talking about a skeleton here. A cleric powerful enough to create one is likely able to destroy one instantly.

Except for the whole "mindless /= evil" bit, and the whole "necromancy /= evil" bit, and the whole "Detect Evil /= evil characters or even evil actions bit," (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html) sure, you're correct. :smallwink:

Snake-Aes
2010-09-07, 08:41 AM
And where does it state this because the rules for the skeleton template specifically say

Alignment: Always neutral evil.

That's why I'm saying the rules contradict themselves.

jmbrown
2010-09-07, 08:51 AM
Except for the whole "mindless /= evil" bit, and the whole "necromancy /= evil" bit, and the whole "Detect Evil /= evil characters or even evil actions bit," (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html) sure, you're correct. :smallwink:

Except that in D&D, Undead = evil and raise undead = evil. I'm not even discussing detect evil here because before 3.X, there was no magical detection radar for evil. Only 9th level characters or above were subject to the traditional detect evil spell and that was assuming they didn't have an alignment lean.

No, D&D undead have always been evil. There's no way around it unless you hand wave it away.


That's why I'm saying the rules contradict themselves.
But it doesn't contradict itself. The essence of undeath is inherently evil by simply existing.

As I said, if this were the OD&D alignment system then undead would be neutral but ever since Basic/AD&D, undead are the embodiment of evil. Using an undead, summoning an undead, controlling an undead are neutral acts at the least, leaning towards evil at the worst.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-07, 08:53 AM
But it doesn't contradict itself. The essence of undeath is inherently evil by simply existing.

As I said, if this were the OD&D alignment system then undead would be neutral but ever since Basic/AD&D, undead are the embodiment of evil. Using an undead, summoning an undead, controlling an undead are neutral acts at the least, leaning towards evil at the worst.

And an explanation is never given to those. Mindless undead are just lumps of meat when they aren't ordered around.

FelixG
2010-09-07, 08:56 AM
No, D&D undead have always been evil. There's no way around it unless you hand wave it away.

Before 3.x undead were neutral

Right there you have proven you dont know what you are talking about.

The only reason they were made evil was to give paladins more things to smite.

The system does contradict itself because you are applying moral abstracts to a creature that is incapable of self action thus choosing its own moral compass.

Undead are no more evil than swords. They can both be used to kill people but that doesnt make them inherently evil.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-07, 08:58 AM
Here, here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164152)This topic doesn't need all that derailing. If that thread is not enough, I suggest opening a new one.

jmbrown
2010-09-07, 09:03 AM
Before 3.x undead were neutral

Right there you have proven you dont know what you are talking about.

The only reason they were made evil was to give paladins more things to smite.

The system does contradict itself because you are applying moral abstracts to a creature that is incapable of self action thus choosing its own moral compass.

Undead are no more evil than swords. They can both be used to kill people but that doesnt make them inherently evil.

No, you're right and I retract my argument of undead being evil thing. Only intelligent undead were evil as all mindless creatures were neutral. The embarrassing thing is that I'm writing my 2E retro-clone as I'm typing in this topic. I got so fired up in my argument that I completely forgot.

My argument for 3.X is that undead are made from the essence of evil. The creatures themselves may not be evil but they detect so because of the negative energy inside them.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-07, 09:06 AM
Where does it say negative energy is inherently evil?

FelixG
2010-09-07, 09:07 AM
No, you're right and I retract my argument of undead being evil thing. Only intelligent undead were evil as all mindless creatures were neutral. The embarrassing thing is that I'm writing my retro-clone as I'm typing in this topic. I got so fired up in my argument that I completely forgot.

My argument for 3.X is that undead are made from the essence of evil. The creatures themselves may not be evil but they detect so because of the negative energy inside them.

3.x skeleton and zombie dragons are not evil though

(draconomicon page 198 reference) Alignment: "Always Neutral"

And they are mindless undead just like any other skele or zombie

Also negative energy is unaligned, if it were aligned as evil then it stands to reason that the negative energy plane would have the evil descriptor which it doesn't.

jmbrown
2010-09-07, 09:09 AM
Where does it say negative energy is inherently evil?

The energy or plane itself? Nowhere. The spell which infuses the energy into the undead? It's right there in the text.

FelixG
2010-09-07, 09:11 AM
The energy or plane itself? Nowhere. The spell which infuses the energy into the undead? It's right there in the text.

If that held true the inflict line of spells would be evil. They are both necromancy and use negative energy, yet they are unaligned.

jmbrown
2010-09-07, 09:12 AM
3.x skeleton and zombie dragons are not evil though

(draconomicon page 198 reference) Alignment: "Always Neutral"

And they are mindless undead just like any other skele or zombie

Also negative energy is unaligned, if it were aligned as evil then it stands to reason that the negative energy plane would have the evil descriptor which it doesn't.

Draconomicon as a source isn't errata for the rules. Animate undead is an aligned spell, the skeleton and zombie template have specific alignments. A dragon skeleton could be something wholly different but the core books specifically state if you raise a skeleton/zombie it's with evil magic. It's evil.


If that held true the inflict line of spells would be evil. They are both necromancy and use negative energy, yet they are unaligned.

You said yourself that negative energy is unaligned. Inflict isn't an aligned spell. Animate undead is.

hamishspence
2010-09-07, 09:44 AM
Using "evil magic" is, however, very low on the list of evil acts in FC2. Not to mention that it is possible to own a skeleton without being its creator.

In PHB "Channelling negative energy is an evil act" in the case of the Rebuke Undead effect- despite the fact that other uses of Negative Energy (Energy Drain, Inflict, etc) aren't.

If you've already killed something to eat- that's not incompatible with "respect for life"- and animating it can be simply based on a "Waste not" perspective.

A tolerance for undead-use can be a feature, not of "light-hearted" games, but "gray and grey morality"- a world where the guys who use undead aren't always card-carrying villains, and the guys who fight undead aren't always upstanding heroes.

Heroes of Horror discusses this kind of world- which fits with many existing D&D settings. And has the Dread Necromancer- which turns themselves into an undead, is a master of undead creation and controlling- and can be of Neutral alignments.

Marnath
2010-09-07, 10:01 AM
Heroes of Horror discusses this kind of world- which fits with many existing D&D settings. And has the Dread Necromancer- which turns themselves into an undead, is a master of undead creation and controlling- and can be of Neutral alignments.

Yeah about that, they can be neutral by doing evil(necromancy) for good reasons. It's still wrong but good intention technically balances it.

hamishspence
2010-09-07, 10:04 AM
That, and the evil acts are only mild ones. Strong evil acts, even for good reasons, lead to Evil alignment in Champions of Ruin.

But mild ones may not- especially if the character is pretty Good overall except for those acts. This would make them a "flexible Neutral" character- lots of Good deeds, mild evil deeds- overall good intentions.

BoVD says something similar "A nonevil character may get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as they do not do so for an evil purpose"

(and evil acts like casting Rebuke Undead, if done by someone like a LN cleric of Wee Jas, solely for the purpose of fighting and defeating aggressive undead- should also qualify as Not Enough For An Evil Alignment.)

Thrawn183
2010-09-07, 10:11 AM
Well, there's also a difference between just turning the horse to dust it and actually attacking the rider.

Marnath
2010-09-07, 10:13 AM
Well, there's also a difference between just turning the horse to dust it and actually attacking the rider.

WEll, Idk about that, they're probably going to be really angry you dusted their ride.

hamishspence
2010-09-07, 10:15 AM
If the cleric is low level, the horse will be forced to flee, if higher level, the mount will turn to dust, sending the rider crashing to the ground- either way, it's a very aggressive move.

Jack Zander
2010-09-07, 11:21 AM
Wow, lots of debate here about my choice of travel.

FYI, this is an Eberron campaign and we have allied ourselves with Karnath (spelling of fantasy made up names may be incorrect). The buggy idea is definitely good, at least until we reach rocky or muddy terrain.

My character is actually Lawful Evil, but its one of those "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" type characters. He wants to create a utopia where everyone has food and never has to work, because his undead horde does all the farming and whatnot for everyone else. However, owning his own town and seeing all the other cities in the world that could use his "help" may possibly corrupt him. He actually calls himself Father Gregory and refers to his horde as his congregation. He has a "father knows best" mentality and thinks that if he just controlled everything, everyone else (or at least the majority of people) would be much better off.

hamishspence
2010-09-07, 12:02 PM
"Only mildly evil" evil characters do go well with Eberron.

As the campaign setting book put it "Not every evil character deserves to be attacked by adventurers".

Greenish
2010-09-07, 01:11 PM
FYI, this is an Eberron campaign and we have allied ourselves with Karnath (spelling of fantasy made up names may be incorrect).It be Karrnath, matey. :smallwink:

Anyway, if you're a cleric necromancer, look up Bone Knight (Five Nations). Decent chassis with some nice immunities and abilities, and an excellent ties to your fluff. Also gets you a skeletal mount that can't be turned while you're riding it.

Jack Zander
2010-09-07, 11:05 PM
Mr OP, everyone is always proficient with their natural weapons. Your horses have 2xhoof + 1xbite.

Wait, please explain this to me. The entry for Light Horse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/horse.htm#horseLight) only lists one single hoof attack at a -2 penalty to hit.

You know what? Maybe I should just get light warhorses instead and quit being such a cheap bastard. They don't count towards my undead army any more than the light horse does, and they are actually good in combat if needed to be.

P.S. This is also a gestalt campaign. I'm playing a cleric/sorcerer with my cha boosted like crazy for higher command undead and to boost the save dcs on my sorcerer necromancy spells. I'm thinking about taking 2-3 levels of paladin of tyranny on one side for that wonderful char to saving throws plus maybe aura of despair to give enemies a -2 on theirs. Good idea or bad idea and if its a good idea, should I take it now, or should I wait until level 17 when I already have my 9ths level spells.

Or can I take it on one side for one level then take it on another side for another level?

Hawriel
2010-09-07, 11:36 PM
A GM that insisted that an animal is not proficient (live or undead) in how to defend its self needs to be hit over the head with the game masters guide, and Darwen's the Origin of Species.


Why are you buying live horses any way? IT would be cheeper to buy dead ones from any number of sorces.

dgnslyr
2010-09-07, 11:57 PM
A GM that insisted that an animal is not proficient (live or undead) in how to defend its self needs to be hit over the head with the game masters guide, and Darwen's the Origin of Species.


Why are you buying live horses any way? IT would be cheeper to buy dead ones from any number of sorces.

The hoof attacks of a horse are secondary attacks, presumably because to use them is rather awkward for the horse. Sure, a horse knows how to hit things with them, but it's not exactly a normal position for a horse to be in. To be unproficient with natural weapons, however, is a bit of a contradiction, as you said.



Also, while I'm afraid I'm a bit late to the conversation, I think mindless undead are considered Evil for purposes of pinging on the paladin-radar and smiting, but aren't truly evil due to a lack of sentience. How much sense would it make for a paladin, champion of good and light, to be unable to effectively destroy with a Smite a creature he should be an expert at dispatching? Also, in a game of black and white morality, it could be argued that anything involving negative energy is inherently evil. In a game with shades of grey, this may not hold true, but in a black-and-white morality game, I don't see why it couldn't.

hamishspence
2010-09-08, 02:39 AM
Also, in a game of black and white morality, it could be argued that anything involving negative energy is inherently evil. In a game with shades of grey, this may not hold true, but in a black-and-white morality game, I don't see why it couldn't.

The problem is that RAW, half the things that involve negative energy (inflict spells, the plane itself) aren't inherently evil.

D&D has never really been that black-and-white.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-08, 04:52 AM
Wait, please explain this to me. The entry for Light Horse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/horse.htm#horseLight) only lists one single hoof attack at a -2 penalty to hit.
The animal type is proficient with all natural weapons it has. not-war horses, instead of being nonproficient, treat their hoof attacks as secondary weapons all the time.


A horse not trained for war does not normally use its hooves to attack. Its hoof attack is treated as a secondary attack and adds only half the horse’s Strength bonus to damage.

Schylerwalker
2010-09-08, 04:57 AM
How about zombie horses plus gentle repose? They'll be slower, but they can go all day without food, water, or rest, and they'll look like normal horses.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-08, 05:12 AM
How about zombie horses plus gentle repose? They'll be slower, but they can go all day without food, water, or rest, and they'll look like normal horses.

If you are using low level magic to mask the horses' identities, it might be better to use illusions instead. You retain the high speeds, the undead neatery and don't scare the hell out of peasants

Otodetu
2010-09-08, 10:40 AM
To pitch inn a few words on the whole necromancy is evil and good clerics should smite horses issue:

Undead are a mockery against life, yes, evil or not is up to debate but really does not matter.

If a cleric can smite undead horses on sight is champaign\region dependent.
You cannot have a debate about such a matter without clarifying the situation and political views.

Say if you rolled inn on undead horses in Greyhawk, you whould end up smited fast.

If you rolled inn on undead horses in Edstrom, capital of Eeed, it would be a everyday event.

hamishspence
2010-09-08, 10:47 AM
Say if you rolled inn on undead horses in Greyhawk, you whould end up smited fast.

Don't know about that- Wee Jas is openly worshipped in the Free City of Greyhawk:

http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=City_of_Greyhawk

and she has no problem with her followers animating the dead as long as those remains are procured in a lawful manner (she frowns on the creation of intelligent undead though).

So, in a place like Greyhawk, you might have clerics of Wee Jas riding on skeletal horses, and her temples might be guarded by skeletons.

Greenish
2010-09-08, 02:03 PM
I'm thinking about taking 2-3 levels of paladin of tyranny on one side for that wonderful char to saving throws plus maybe aura of despair to give enemies a -2 on theirs.Try to see how your DM takes the idea of combining two variants and get PrC Paladin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigePaladin) of Tyranny. 3 levels would only lose you a single level of casting.

JoshuaZ
2010-09-08, 02:20 PM
Also, if disguising undead, there's a nice second level illusion spell in Libris Mortis- "Disguise Undead." It makes undead look like living creatures.

Jack Zander
2010-09-08, 04:53 PM
Try to see how your DM takes the idea of combining two variants and get PrC Paladin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigePaladin) of Tyranny. 3 levels would only lose you a single level of casting.

Wow, that is really awesome. Thanks. Am I able to take the second level of that on my sorcerer side instead of my cleric side and not lose three cleric levels (which helps my command/rebuke undead)?

AslanCross
2010-09-08, 09:02 PM
Five Nations states that skeletal horses can in fact be ridden all night, and as long as you're going in the right direction, you can sleep on your horse. Karrnathi knights are known for doing this. They swear that skeletal horses actually being more comfortable than living horses due to having a smoother gait.

Otodetu
2010-09-09, 04:44 AM
Don't know about that- Wee Jas is openly worshipped in the Free City of Greyhawk:

http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=City_of_Greyhawk

and she has no problem with her followers animating the dead as long as those remains are procured in a lawful manner (she frowns on the creation of intelligent undead though).

So, in a place like Greyhawk, you might have clerics of Wee Jas riding on skeletal horses, and her temples might be guarded by skeletons.

Shows how much i know about Greyhawk; just crumbles and straws.

Back to the smiting thing: a fair amount of paladin/cleric players i have played with have all gone the "insta-smite" route on skeleton horses, no matter the situation, even when plain wrong given the situation, sort of lawful stupid.

I feel this is often because they feel restricted by being good aligned, so they try to justify acts of random violence as good by striking out at pre-determined "hostiles" from the "other team".

Greenish
2010-09-09, 04:45 AM
Wow, that is really awesome. Thanks. Am I able to take the second level of that on my sorcerer side instead of my cleric side and not lose three cleric levels (which helps my command/rebuke undead)?You could take all three levels on your sorcerer side (though you'd lose the benefit of the increased caster levels), but note that PrC paladin advances your rebuking as if you'd gained levels in cleric.

There are quite a few of other cleric PrCs that also achieve that, so wanting to Rebuke doesn't mean you have to stay straight cleric.

hamishspence
2010-09-09, 04:54 AM
Back to the smiting thing: a fair amount of paladin/cleric players i have played with have all gone the "insta-smite" route on skeleton horses, no matter the situation, even when plain wrong given the situation, sort of lawful stupid.

I feel this is often because they feel restricted by being good aligned, so they try to justify acts of random violence as good by striking out at pre-determined "hostiles" from the "other team".

This may be a holdover from earlier editions of D&D- when the basic assumption tended to be that "monsters exist for the players to kill".

Even 4E, which tends to be a bit retro in that respect, mentions that there are places where intelligent undead have all the rights of living beings (such as Sigil, the planar city) and that skeletons have mysteriously come to the rescue of cities in danger (maybe commanded by a nonevil necromancer) in Open Grave.

Zombimode
2010-09-09, 05:00 AM
This may be a holdover from extremely old editions of D&D- when the basic assumption tended to be that "monsters exist for the players to kill".

Fixed. This notion began to fade in AD&D 1e, and was fully absent in 2e.

hamishspence
2010-09-09, 05:06 AM
On the Dragonsfoot forum, one of the comments by Gary Gygax- on "what do do if you find a helpless monster, such as a wyvern" said- you should kill it, in order to protect others from what it might do if it recovers.

I think it was in the same thread as asked what you should do with monsters taken prisoner (again, the answer suggested was "kill them if they are evil aligned".)

At least one edition of Basic D&D (Eric Holmes edition) did say that killing prisoners is inappropriate behaviour for good characters though.

Otodetu
2010-09-09, 06:39 AM
On the Dragonsfoot forum, one of the comments by Gary Gygax- on "what do do if you find a helpless monster, such as a wyvern" said- you should kill it, in order to protect others from what it might do if it recovers.

I think it was in the same thread as asked what you should do with monsters taken prisoner (again, the answer suggested was "kill them if they are evil aligned".)

At least one edition of Basic D&D (Eric Holmes edition) did say that killing prisoners is inappropriate behaviour for good characters though.


I guess it depends alot on the prisoner, a wyvern is little more than a animal, having trouble with not getting into trouble and killing the innocent, a group of bandits is another matter.

Then again if you find undead horses in an abondoned barn, are they capable of evil? (supposing the recognized; "i can't move without a command" skeletons)

Kaww
2010-09-09, 07:45 AM
On the Dragonsfoot forum, one of the comments by Gary Gygax- on "what do do if you find a helpless monster, such as a wyvern" said- you should kill it, in order to protect others from what it might do if it recovers.

I think it was in the same thread as asked what you should do with monsters taken prisoner (again, the answer suggested was "kill them if they are evil aligned".)

At least one edition of Basic D&D (Eric Holmes edition) did say that killing prisoners is inappropriate behaviour for good characters though.

Book of exalted deeds pg 28. Chapter 2: Variant rules: Mercy, prisoners & redemption...

Not killing is not good enough. But I didn't notice anything about undead and irredeemable prisoners...

Jayabalard
2010-09-09, 08:03 AM
"Attack all undead on sight- even those that are relatively harmless and being commanded by somebody" is pretty foolhardy- and may lead to charges of destruction of property.Freeing slaves on sight, even if they're not currently being whipped by their owners, might lead to similar charges... that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong* with a good cleric doing so (even a lawful good one). It might indeed be foolhardy, since you'll be challenging the powers that be in that area, and they may be very powerful, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what the "right thing to do" is in that situation.

Based on how resurrection and similar spells work on people who have been turned into undead, I don't personally see much difference between owning slaves (where the body is enslaved), and owning undead (where both the body and soul are enslaved), except that the latter is more evil than the former, and that in the latter case you can only free the individual by killing them. So I can see how it makes perfect sense for a good aligned cleric, especially one of a deity like Pelor, to destroy undead on sight.

Really though, this is something that is VERY campaign specific; it's fine if you want to have undead in your campaigns be something other than abominations of nature that should be destroyed on sight by all right thinking people, but you shouldn't make the assumption that everyone plays that way or that they should play that way.

*wrong in this context meaning against their alignment or out of character.

Raimun
2010-09-09, 08:11 AM
In my humble opinion, I'd like to suggest that you have missed one small detail.

Purge the undead!

No offense meant to any undead in the present company.

hamishspence
2010-09-09, 08:49 AM
Really though, this is something that is VERY campaign specific; it's fine if you want to have undead in your campaigns be something other than abominations of nature that should be destroyed on sight by all right thinking people, but you shouldn't make the assumption that everyone plays that way or that they should play that way.

The point I was trying to make- is that the default assumption in most D&D worlds (Greyhawk, Faerun, Planescape, Eberron) is that animated undead are, if not liked, at least considered within a certain level of acceptability.

So- if you were to enter Sharn, Waterdeep, Sigil, Greyhawk, etc with undead horses carrying your stuff, while the guards and residents might be somewhat distrustful, they generally wouldn't attack your undead porters on sight.

And if one of the residents did- you could have them arrested and charged with destruction of property.

On the subject of "enslaving souls" Complete Divine makes it explicitly clear that for the vast majority of undead, the soul is not affected- you do not affect someone's afterlife by animating their body. And even intelligent undead generally don't have souls (and turning a body into an intelligent undead won't affect the soul)- liches, ghosts and vampires are some of the rare exceptions- being undead with souls.

FelixG
2010-09-10, 09:58 AM
Freeing slaves on sight, even if they're not currently being whipped by their owners, might lead to similar charges... that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong* with a good cleric doing so (even a lawful good one). It might indeed be foolhardy, since you'll be challenging the powers that be in that area, and they may be very powerful, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what the "right thing to do" is in that situation.



Congratulations! That "slave" you just freed was a convict that stole from the person he now serves and was put into servitude to pay off his debt to society! Mr LG cleric is now guilty of aiding and freeing a known convicted criminal! Everything is not always how it looks.




Based on how resurrection and similar spells work on people who have been turned into undead, I don't personally see much difference between owning slaves (where the body is enslaved), and owning undead (where both the body and soul are enslaved), except that the latter is more evil than the former, and that in the latter case you can only free the individual by killing them. So I can see how it makes perfect sense for a good aligned cleric, especially one of a deity like Pelor, to destroy undead on sight.


Except the soul isnt enslaved in an undead, they are still in their afterlife. Undead are pretty much constructs powered by negative energy.

So arguably the later is LESS evil as at least the persons soul is free to enjoy their earned afterlife while their body is recycled while the current slave is being tortured and forced to endure the hardships both body and soul.

Zaydos
2010-09-10, 10:05 AM
Technically being undead traps the soul so that it can't be revived even by True Resurrection, which would imply you do in fact enslave the soul.

Jack Zander
2010-09-10, 10:27 AM
Technically being undead traps the soul so that it can't be revived even by True Resurrection, which would imply you do in fact enslave the soul.

I don't think it traps the soul. It just prevents resurrection because the body is in use.

Zaydos
2010-09-10, 10:31 AM
I don't think it traps the soul. It just prevents resurrection because the body is in use.

True Resurrection creates a new body. The only things that can stop it are the soul being unable to return and it specifies that being undead stops this.

FelixG
2010-09-10, 10:35 AM
It also states "even creatures whos bodies have been destroyed" problem is the body hasnt been destroyed. Its still up walking around. Leaning MORE evidence to the fact its the problem of the body being in use rather then the soul.

The raise dead talks about the body, no where does it mention the soul, so there is no precedent to think the soul is harmed in any way, unless you are talking about wraiths, where the soul is turned into the undead, in which case it mentions so definitively.

Jack Zander
2010-09-10, 10:37 AM
True Resurrection creates a new body. The only things that can stop it are the soul being unable to return and it specifies that being undead stops this.

I can definitely see how that would be a logical conclusion of the events. However, just because being undead prevents your soul from returning to your newly created body does not necessarily mean that your soul is trapped in the undead form. There could be a number of other reasons.

Hague
2010-09-10, 10:48 AM
If you get brought to zero strength by a shadow's attack, you can't be resurrected until you destroy your shadow spawn because you never really died, you (the creature) become the spawn, your soul has been hijacked.

Jack Zander
2010-09-10, 10:53 AM
If you get brought to zero strength by a shadow's attack, you can't be resurrected until you destroy your shadow spawn because you never really died, you (the creature) become the spawn, your soul has been hijacked.

That's a shadow though. We're not talking about those kinds of undead. The topic in question is specifically zombies and skeletons.

hamishspence
2010-09-10, 11:07 AM
Complete Divine clarifies that when a spawn is created, the soul of the original creature is trapped. Sometimes the undead has the memories as well as the soul ( vampires, spectres, ghouls, ghasts) and sometimes it doesn't (shadows, wights, wraiths).

it also suggests some souls become undead if they die in specific ways (allips, bodaks)

However, skeletons and zombies are not among these.

Hmm- if wights are souled undead, doesn't that mean that killing someone with energy drain or enervation (or Fell Drain metamagic) really should be evil, even if the spell doesn't have the [Evil] tag- since it traps the soul of the victim in an undead?

Or do wights created via enervation not count as souled- since they weren't created using an undead's Create Spawn ability?

FelixG
2010-09-10, 11:11 AM
Complete Divine clarifies that when a spawn is created, the soul of the original creature is trapped. Sometimes the undead has the memories as well as the soul ( vampires, spectres, ghouls, ghasts) and sometimes it doesn't (shadows, wights, wraiths).

it also suggests some souls become undead if they die in specific ways (allips, bodaks)

However, skeletons and zombies are not among these.

Hmm- if wights are souled undead, doesn't that mean that killing someone with energy drain or enervation (or Fell Drain metamagic) really should be evil, even if the spell doesn't have the [Evil] tag- since it traps the soul of the victim in an undead?

Or do wights created via enervation not count as souled- since they weren't created using an undead's Create Spawn ability?

Well technically creating a Golem should be quite evil as you are enslaving a soul to give the creation life but its not so...yah :P

hamishspence
2010-09-10, 11:13 AM
Some creatures, according to Complete Divine, don't have souls- like constructs.

(I'm guessing warforged are an exception because they are "living constructs".)

Which raises the question of whether the "elemental spirit" in the creature does- since normally, elementals do have souls, which are part of their bodies.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-10, 11:18 AM
Some creatures, according to Complete Divine, don't have souls- like constructs.

(I'm guessing warforged are an exception because they are "living constructs".)

Which raises the question of whether the "elemental spirit" in the creature does- since normally, elementals do have souls, which are part of their bodies.

It's likely either a dissonance of writers or an indistinction between body and soul, given they are melded for elementals.

hamishspence
2010-09-10, 11:29 AM
Maybe it's a prototype of the "animus" concept in 4E- everything sentient has a soul and an animus "spirit" and the creation of the golem removes the animus from an elemental and traps it in the golem?

After all, a golem when it dies doesn't have an elemental rise out of the wrecked body.

Whereas, in elemental skyships in Eberron- there is a body trapped as well- so- if Mordenkainen's Disjunction is used to free the elemental , it will be on the Material plane and able to attack the ship (it doesnt say how powerful the elemental would be though).

Coidzor
2010-09-10, 11:30 AM
Which raises the question of whether the "elemental spirit" in the creature does- since normally, elementals do have souls, which are part of their bodies.
It's likely either a dissonance of writers or an indistinction between body and soul, given they are melded for elementals.

Are there actual elementals involved, or are these the same sort of "spirits" that are never detailed that cause animated undead to be motile. Libris Mortis did mention something along those lines, IIRC.

hamishspence
2010-09-10, 11:32 AM
In the case of golems it's not very clear.

In the case of skyships, if you go by Explorer's Handbook- it's possible to free a complete elemental- but it doesn't say how powerful or intelligent that elemental is.

Greenish
2010-09-10, 11:53 AM
Some creatures, according to Complete Divine, don't have souls- like constructs.

(I'm guessing warforged are an exception because they are "living constructs".)Whether warforged have souls is a rather contested issue in Eberron, I seem to recall. (Though I might be confusing it to something else.)

For Eberron elementals, there's a minor sect in one of the books that prefers to ask for permission from the elementals before binding them to anything.

Hague
2010-09-10, 12:20 PM
Well, the elemental spirit used to create golems could be a specific elemental, but more than likely (as it's not mentioned) the spirit could just be some of the soulstuff that makes up all the non-material planes. As stated elsewhere, the planes are made up of all the dead souls of their petitioners (not sure how this works on Eberron since dead souls only go to Dolurrh) and when a petitioner fades, they become part of that plane so any energy dragged from the plane of Fire consists of little bits of any creature that existed as part of that plane. Destroying the golem, in effect, returns the spirit (loosely defined as a non-creature, like nature spirits) back to its originating plane.

Coidzor
2010-09-10, 01:11 PM
In the case of golems it's not very clear.

In the case of skyships, if you go by Explorer's Handbook- it's possible to free a complete elemental- but it doesn't say how powerful or intelligent that elemental is.

What, it doesn't give the size of the elemental? Wiggy.

Zeofar
2010-09-10, 01:50 PM
On topic, a skeleton retains all of its natural proficiencies. However, as noted on 268 of MM 3.5 (Yeesh, I hope this is actually a 3.5 question or I'm dumb), some animals do not usually use their natural weapons for combat so they are treated as secondary weapons. Page 273 of the MM describes horses, and says that its hoof attack is a secondary attack and only adds half the horses' strength bonus to damage. If you calculate the attack bonus compared to the Horses' strength modifier (-1 for a Heavy horse, with a +3 Strength modifier, and -2 for a light horse, which has a +2 strength modifier), you'll see that it has a non proficiency penalty of -4 and a BAB of zero. So, as far as I can tell, the answer is no, they are not proficient with hooves (It looks like this might have been figured out already. Oh well :/). Getting a warhorse sounds like a good idea.

About turning someone running around on an undead horse? You know what, I'll just put my spiel here and hope anyone actually cares.

Now, the notion that a Cleric would instantly try to vaporize skeletal horses while someone was riding them is absurd. In some cases, it would be an evil or at least nuetral act. Now, for most of this, I'm going to assume that the cleric is Lawful Good or Neutral Good, and I'll get to Chaotic Good and Lawful Neutral and others later. I'm also going to assume that the Cleric is a casual observer in most cases (Unless the nature of the case makes it not so), because there is no reason to assume otherwise.

To begin with, in most cases, the Cleric would have to have due cause to dehorse the riders. In other words, it would have to be acceptable for the Cleric to force the riders off of their horses regardless of what they were riding. Falling off a horse, which can happen when a horse is "spooked" (I assume a turned horse would be the same as a panicked one) or it magically disappears, can result in great pain, broken bones, or death. If you dehorse someone, you are risking that they will die on the way down, especially if they are not experienced riders. Since this is a violation of personal rights, this would indeed by a neutral or evil act unless the proper circumstances are present.

When does the Cleric have due cause? Obviously, if the riders are killing people, yes, he has due cause (Consider this the fourth tier, which will make more sense if you read on) or perhaps if the riders are literally "bearing down on him" clearly and obviously. But that isn't really what we're discussing, since those would merit action from most anyone, regardless of whether or not they are a Cleric. I'll look at a few situations -

1. The riders are slowly walking through city or village streets at an acceptable pace for a horse and doing nothing menacing - No, the Cleric does not have due cause. There is nothing to indiciate that the riders are truly dangerous. The Cleric DOES have cause to approach them by the nature of their mounts.

2. The riders are rushing through the city streets, posing a danger to anyone who gets in the way, verbally or physicaly threatening people, or their actions are causing a panic - Cause to dehorse or panic their mounts? No. The Cleric does have cause to somehow stop them or approach them, and if they do not stop, he MAY have cause to turn the horses.

3. The riders are running through the city recklessly, possibly trampling people or destroying the stands of street merchants. They are brandishing weapons or magic, or otherwise pose an obvious and immediate threat, or are known fugitives. In this case, the Cleric may have due cause to turn the horses - However, when the Cleric does have due cause, he must also have Authority. Authority to act may be present because there is nobody else that can help. In this case, it may be acceptable. But more on authority below.

Now, authority comes in different forms. Because often the Cleric does not have have authority, this is more often a situation for the City Watch or guards, and the Cleric may obtain incidental authority from them. If the Cleric is somehow a sheriff of the law, and has authority to act, he may even act without due cause, but that doesn't mean that his act is morally acceptable just because people are riding undead horses. Situational authority may be present if the Cleric is the only one who can immedietly take action. Now, if the city (or region they are riding in, if they aren't in a city) strictly forbids undead, then the situation is the one tier worse than described above. If it is a holy city of the Cleric's god, then it may be two tiers worse. But, since there are a lot of modifying factors like this, I'll leave it at that as a the basis of a system that could be used to determine the quality of the situation.

Now, the situation is certainly different if they bring the horse into the Cleric's temple, especially if they bust down the doors or race inside, if not for anything other than the reason that the Cleric will (almost) always have authority there. If the Cleric is the only one there, and they pose no immediate threat, then lets say it is tier 2. If people are there (say, some sort of church service) and the riders pose a grave interruption, then it might be a tier 3 situation, although he should try to request that they leave before he does anything, but they'll probably be getting a "O hell no mofo" at the very least. If they are an obvious threat, or there is some other grave circumstance, then it is probably a tier 4, and they should get ready for divine retribution (They're pretty much guaranteed to be dead in a Church of St. Cuthbert, in all likelyhood).

I haven't yet accounted for the Clerics personality. Obviously, if he is prone to emotional or rash reactions, he may respond with a turning in any situation, but we are talking about someone who often cannot control themselves or seriously hates undead beyond what is prescribed by most. But again, this means that the fact that he takes action isn't really related to him being a Cleric beyond being the reason why he dislikes undead. I'll say that this is the situation for a Chaotic Cleric as well, because, really, it is.

Now, for a Lawful Neutral Cleric of some god like St. Cuthbert, the fact that they are undead doesn't really play a large role in it. If they ARE doing something wrong, though, he is likely to take the most extreme action possible, which may mean turning the horses. Fair enough.

And even beyond all this, one still needs to consider if their motives are truly good. Different gods and alignments may prescribe different actions, and these also change circumstances.

Now, for Evil Clerics... Actually, no, I'll pass on mentioning that. But really, the alignment system of D&D is not perceived by the people in the world; whether or not undead are "always neutral evil" isn't really relevant because nobody really KNOWS that. Each action affects alignment, but alignment doesn't affect every action.


A GM that insisted that an animal is not proficient (live or undead) in how to defend its self needs to be hit over the head with the game masters guide, and Darwen's the Origin of Species.


Great, Horses are proficient at running, which is how they stay alive. Characters even use them because of their great ability at running. Whether or not this is supported by the game rules isn't really important, because it really is sensible that the horse isn't proficient with his "weapons."