What happens to animated unead after the animator dies?

[under_score]

So, in the (perhaps) unlikely event that a dread necromancer in my campaign bites it, I'm wondering what happens to the undead he has animated. I figure just his basic mindless animated undead go rogue (with no master to command them).

But what about his awakened undead? Would they perhaps follow in their master's wishes in his absence or just wander around doing undeadly things?

Most curious to me, what happens after the party hits him with a true resurrection, probably several days later? Do his rogue undead return to his control? Or is the link between them permanently severed with his death?

[Gamer Girl]

The rules don't cover this.

You could go with:

1.All undead are free at the moment of the casters death. The 'bond' is gone, forever.

2.The control fades over time. Something like they will stay 'controlled' for one day per caster level or such. Then they become free.

3.The control weakens over time. Give the undead a Wil save to break the control when death occurs, and something like once a day after that.

In general, control should be lost forever. But you could add in a waiting period, of maybe a day per caster level where they could reassert control.

[Coidzor]

The rules don't cover this.

In general, control should be lost forever. But you could add in a waiting period, of maybe a day per caster level where they could reassert control.

Why is that what should happen if the rules don't cover it?

[grarrrg]

Why is that what should happen if the rules don't cover it?

Because the alternatives are less intuitive.

If they follow their masters last command, what happens when/if they finish? Do they just mill around?

Does the Necromancer still have control from 'beyond the grave'?

Do they go "poof" and dissappear or drop dead(again)?


Losing control is the most straight forward possibility.

[Veyr]

Also, the option of the Undead just de-animating rather than becoming free is available.

[Gamer Girl]

Why is that what should happen if the rules don't cover it?

I'm a realist.

One thing I loathe about modern(3X+) is the happy, happy everything thing if peachy fine and cool outlook in the rules, and the way everything always works out in favor of the players.

The shapeshifting rules are a great example--"All your stuff is melded into your form'' Sigh.

So undead control should be lost upon death. Unless your a more fair and balanced and you just say 'eh, nothing matters..and everything always works out good for you in the end'.

And the idea of losing control sounds much more flavorful and evil. The idea that rouge undead would be around after you came back to live is much better for story telling. The idea that 'well your undead would wait for you as your a special character' is lame.(It's as bad as 98 pound Banner becomes the 700 pound Hulk, yet his pants stay intact and on)

[Daverin]

One idea, taken somewhat from some fluff from the WoWRPG, is to make it so that any undead that loses its controller is "free," but is compelled to seek out places, or people, that radiate negative energy; I'd say make it that their first compulsion is to follow the last orders of their master, but if they finish that, or perhaps a time limit, they would then wonder around, fulfill any urges they inherently have, but also seek out, say, a graveyard that has had at least one animation occur there. Not sure if they'd be able to actually know exactly where to go, or would have to wander aimlessly until they can detect something.

[Amnestic]

(It's as bad as 98 pound Banner becomes the 700 pound Hulk, yet his pants stay intact and on)

You'd rather they come off? :smallyuk: Ew.

Why wouldn't the undead just disintegrate once their animator falls?

[Jallorn]

Personally, I favor the idea that undead are freed upon the necromancer's death, immediately, but that mindless undead continue to follow their last command until completion (if it's possible).

[Gamer Girl]

You'd rather they come off? :smallyuk: Ew.

Why wouldn't the undead just disintegrate once their animator falls?

It's not that I want them to come off, it's that it's a silly thing.


By the Rules, Undead are creatures. They don't disintegrate if they have no animator, it's not like the animator has them on a magic string. After all the world is full of free undead.

[under_score]

Well, I'm definitely convinced that the connection should be lost (or lost in rather short order).

If nothing else, it lends a greater penalty to death at this high level (17-18 in the party).

Thanks for your thoughts.

(If any of you have further ideas, I'm still plenty interested in hearing them, of course).

[Coidzor]

I'm a realist.

One thing I loathe about modern(3X+) is the happy, happy everything thing if peachy fine and cool outlook in the rules, and the way everything always works out in favor of the players.

The shapeshifting rules are a great example--"All your stuff is melded into your form'' Sigh.

So undead control should be lost upon death. Unless your a more fair and balanced and you just say 'eh, nothing matters..and everything always works out good for you in the end'.

And the idea of losing control sounds much more flavorful and evil. The idea that rouge undead would be around after you came back to live is much better for story telling. The idea that 'well your undead would wait for you as your a special character' is lame.(It's as bad as 98 pound Banner becomes the 700 pound Hulk, yet his pants stay intact and on)

1. Realism doesn't really work when applied to magic for various reasons.

2. Rogue, not rouge.

3. That rationale doesn't rule out temporarily rogue undead and some way of reestablishing control.

[grarrrg]

1. Realism doesn't really work when applied to magic for various reasons.

True. But something has to happen (even if the 'something' is nothing happening). So we are left to try and figure it out.


2. Rogue, not rouge.

No, I think she meant Rouge Skeletons.
http://gothstore.piratemerch.com/images/edward-loew.gif
Who doesn't dye their minions to match the latest styles?

[under_score]

No, I think she meant Rouge Skeletons.

Who doesn't dye their minions to match the latest styles?

How fantastic. :)

[Gamer Girl]

1. Realism doesn't really work when applied to magic for various reasons.

2. Rogue, not rouge.

3. That rationale doesn't rule out temporarily rogue undead and some way of reestablishing control.


1.Sigh...so sure everything is fantasy, the sky is green and the moon is made of cheese. Whatever! Most, normal, rational people have game worlds based on reality. For example, water flows down hill. Now, yes, your free to have a game world where water flows up hill and even flows up hill and into space getting sucked into the 'moon sponge'. And that is fine if you do. But it's more then safe the say that 99% of people like a realistic game world: wood and paper burn in a fire, when water gets cold it turns to ice and so forth. And the same is true for magic...if you fly up into the sky and the spell ends...you fall to the ground(realism). Now you could have a game that said the 'happy air catches you and set you safely back on the ground', but most people have gravity in their games.

This is such an old argument too. That some people think that magic/fantasy means 'anything goes', and then the rest of us 99% of people are calm and rational about it.

2.Sigh.

3.I said back in my very first post that you could allow for re-control.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

I would say intelligent undead are now free to act.

And mindless undead just are left with remains in their no-mind of their last task. If their creator dies, they act according to the last order they received. Once completed, they just stay like statues in the spot they completed the challenge, forever or until controlled again, only attacking if previously being attacked. If some mindless undead needs to eat to survive, his purpose will be only feeding himself.

[Veyr]

1.Sigh...so sure everything is fantasy, the sky is green and the moon is made of cheese. Whatever! Most, normal, rational people have game worlds based on reality. For example, water flows down hill. Now, yes, your free to have a game world where water flows up hill and even flows up hill and into space getting sucked into the 'moon sponge'. And that is fine if you do. But it's more then safe the say that 99% of people like a realistic game world: wood and paper burn in a fire, when water gets cold it turns to ice and so forth. And the same is true for magic...if you fly up into the sky and the spell ends...you fall to the ground(realism). Now you could have a game that said the 'happy air catches you and set you safely back on the ground', but most people have gravity in their games.
And what on earth does this have to do with the undead? Are you citing some real-world precedent I'm not aware of? I don't consider the undead becoming free any more "realistic" then them just falling down dead because the source of their animation was gone. It's a matter of how you fluff the animation process in the first place.

[Alleine]

Why wouldn't the undead just disintegrate once their animator falls?

Because Animate Dead is instantaneous. I can't imagine why they would disintegrate.

An alternative is that the undead are still under the animator's control... only the thing is him being dead sorta prevents that control being exercised. You can't exactly tell them what to do when you're 6 feet under and the soul is on another plane of existence.

[under_score]

I don't consider the undead becoming free any more "realistic" then them just falling down dead because the source of their animation was gone.

Well now, the spell's duration is instantaneous and it explicitly says "they remain animated until they are destroyed." I don't think there can be too much question as to their remaining animated.

With regards to my original question about losing control of the undead at death, there's the tricky (and nonspecific) text stating, "the undead you create remain under your control indefinitely."

What I'm thinking at this point, based on discussion from several of you, is that upon the caster's death there is no longer anyone to control them. As the caster can no longer control them, they succumb to their own natural proclivities as undead -- wander around aimlessly if mindless, find a nice source of necromantic power or some such if awakened. The spell says nothing about regaining control, so if the caster is raised there really isn't anyway for him to reestablish control outside of rebuke undead (which would require them to be of hit dice half his level...which the undead in question are not).

[under_score]

An alternative is that the undead are still under the animator's control... only the thing is him being dead sorta prevents that control being exercised.

So, would you say that upon resurrection he still has control of them?

[Kantolin]

One thing I loathe about modern(3X+) is the happy, happy everything thing if peachy fine and cool outlook in the rules, and the way everything always works out in favor of the players.

[...]

So undead control should be lost upon death. Unless your a more fair and balanced and you just say 'eh, nothing matters..and everything always works out good for you in the end'.

How is 'Undead become uncontrolled' even usually benificial for the players? O_o

Necromancers animating undead are, 99% of the time, the bad guys. The PC animating undead are the significant minority - most people play good-aligned games, most of those games don't have xor allow for a necromancer, and even in evil-based games you tend to not necessarily have a necromancer (although it's much more likely then).

Undead control being retained is almost always a bad thing for the PCs, since it means that if you kill the evil necromancer, his animated undead will continue to do his nefarious bidding.

Undead control being retained when the necromancer is revived is also almost always a bad thing for the PCs, as it means if any of the evil cabal of necromancers is raise dead'd by the other members they can continue their nefarious plans. Nefariously.

...unless you're saying that things should always work out in a way that is detrimental to the PCs, and thus when you have a PC necromancer they work out poorly for him, but if you don't they work out well. In which... well, that's not how I'd prefer to think.

Anyway! I'm all for 'Bang, the control is removed immediately'. Thematically, I like the idea of if you kill the necromancer, all of the undead do whatever they'd like - if mindless, they start mindlessly rampaging (which probably isn't much better than what they were doing, mind you) while the intelligent undead under his control now can run around and do what they like.

[Coidzor]

Well now, the spell's duration is instantaneous and it explicitly says "they remain animated until they are destroyed." I don't think there can be too much question as to their remaining animated. That's not what was being contested here. The contested thing is that there's no basis in realism for any decision made in this context of undead. Even what you just cited isn't based in realism but based on the rules of the game as they were written down.


1.Sigh...so sure everything is fantasy, the sky is green and the moon is made of cheese. Whatever! Most, normal, rational people have game worlds based on reality. For example, water flows down hill. Now, yes, your free to have a game world where water flows up hill and even flows up hill and into space getting sucked into the 'moon sponge'. And that is fine if you do. But it's more then safe the say that 99% of people like a realistic game world: wood and paper burn in a fire, when water gets cold it turns to ice and so forth. And the same is true for magic...if you fly up into the sky and the spell ends...you fall to the ground(realism). Now you could have a game that said the 'happy air catches you and set you safely back on the ground', but most people have gravity in their games.

This is such an old argument too. That some people think that magic/fantasy means 'anything goes', and then the rest of us 99% of people are calm and rational about it.

None of those things really have anything to do with magic and the magic system though and are basic setting creation hooplahs. So it's essentially a non-answer.


3.I said back in my very first post that you could allow for re-control.

And my first reply to it was asking for your reasons for this and you didn't really explain why you felt that the way you went was inherently superior to the option to reassert control.

[under_score]

Even what you just cited isn't based in realism but based on the rules of the game as they were written down.

It's based on the semblance of realism within the game created by mechanics of the system. Yes, this is a thing. Otherwise all games would be wholeheartedly unrealistic and nothing would make sense ever.

[Coidzor]

It's based on the semblance of realism within the game created by mechanics of the system. Yes, this is a thing. Otherwise all games would be wholeheartedly unrealistic and nothing would make sense ever.

Nope, that's called verisimilitude. And again, you've failed to explain how your option is actually more realistic than the other one, or indeed, any other one, other than saying that the rules are realistic which is not a position I would recommend taking.

What with buckets bringing people to 0 HP and no ability to stop drowning and the inability to hit someone more than 5 feet away when wielding a mace the size of a flagpole all being part of the rules.

[under_score]

Forgive me, I should have said: "It's based on the semblance of realism within the game created by the consistent mechanics of the system."

When did this become a discussion about the realism or unrealism within dnd on the whole? I just wanted to know what people thought made the most sense within the context of the rules and mechanics already established.

[Alleine]

So, would you say that upon resurrection he still has control of them?

I'd probably let it happen that way, after all the way animate dead is worded could support that. Of course, you might have to hunt them down if they're intelligent and ran off, or unintelligent and just wandered off due to lack of instructions.

[AsteriskAmp]

1.Sigh...so sure everything is fantasy, the sky is green and the moon is made of cheese. Whatever! Most, normal, rational people have game worlds based on reality. For example, water flows down hill. Now, yes, your free to have a game world where water flows up hill and even flows up hill and into space getting sucked into the 'moon sponge'. And that is fine if you do. But it's more then safe the say that 99% of people like a realistic game world: wood and paper burn in a fire, when water gets cold it turns to ice and so forth. And the same is true for magic...if you fly up into the sky and the spell ends...you fall to the ground(realism). Now you could have a game that said the 'happy air catches you and set you safely back on the ground', but most people have gravity in their games.

This is such an old argument too. That some people think that magic/fantasy means 'anything goes', and then the rest of us 99% of people are calm and rational about it.

[Citation needed], you know there are whole systems based around just wacky things?, the fact that they are making a profit implies they have to have a reasonable customer base which will probably exceed the 1% OF RPGAMERS that you are assuming do not want truthlikeness (verosimilitude, there is a quote floating around in a sig defining realism and verosimilitude, asthey aren't the same) in their world

Also, each time physics and geology get mentioned you have to remember that this is a world were dragons exist and fly, laughing in the face of physics, and if this laws are allowed than you get the commoner railgun and the official published maps laugh at geology, and geography as in some cases water even flows upstream. No DM is going to create a completely truthlike world since it would not only be insane but is impossible as there are processes that we've yet to completely understand.

Also, there are different degrees of fantasy and levels of magic, DnD incorporates a wide array of them. Some DMs prefer handwavium, some others prefer pseudo-scientific explanations. Even WOTC doesn't take a stand, we have Forgotten Realms, Eberron and Greyhawk, each one varies greatly in their take of magic. Nobody in this topic has justified anything as a wizard did it. The issue is that you aren't explaining why do you believe your preferred option would be the one with the most verisimilitude, since mechanics are not clear and fluff varies greatly, if the author of a proposition doesn't enounce it clearly and gives backing arguments, he has no fundament to be annoyed if this one is challenged

[Aricandor]

When I DM I make the ruling that death itself is enough of an inconvenience without making the player have to reassert command with new spells or having to animate a whole new host right on the spot after being brought back to life (or possibly unlife).

That said I wouldn't expect the undead to just sit around, depending on the spells used to create them. For instance, the create undead duo explicitly mentions that undead created must be controlled through other
means, so if for example command undead is used I'd just keep track of the days. If the caster comes back alive before then he can start bossing them around, otherwise they're free of that bond. Undead commanded through rebuke I'd argue would remain so forever (there's no duration mentioned), but if the animator doesn't return they'd probably take up behaviour appropriate to their alignment and mental scores in absence of direct commands from an "owner".
This is probably as close as the rules come to covering the situation.

Even after expiration, some might be loyal and wait, but others could consider it a chance at freedom and bolt far away to keep their new independence, while others still would stat making schemes of their own.

As for mindless ones, I kind of like the idea of them resorting to some default state, the exact nature of which might depend on the campaign. While the default setting might imply that mindless undead bereft of command just stand around and try to eat whatever living creatures happen to come by, I think there's room for more creative fun here.

As amusing as the uncontrolled horde could be to play around with, I'd probably favour the idea that they're instinctively drawn towards negatively charged places, such as desecrated or unhallowed ground, portals to the negative plane or whatever else. A necromancer's death triggering a sudden flood of mindless undead trying by all means to get to a place they're sensing could be a fun campaign setup on its own. :smallbiggrin:

[Telonius]

What happens to animated unead after the animator dies?

Depends on whether it was animated before or after Steamboat Willie. :smallbiggrin:

[ka_bna]

Just a thought about 2 other possibilities. Not RAW, but just thougths:
1. Think of mindless undead as discarded robots from I, Robot. Do undead dream? Why do they huddle together when put in a room? Some pieces of code arcane power are unfathomable... In this case, undead will wander around with a few unexpected quirks.

2. Animate dead says: "The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely". So you control it even if you died. That's the thought of indefinitely, right? Maybe the skeleton has a bond with you alike a binder and a vestige. You manifest a bit of yourself through the skeleton, and the skeleton gains power from you (= able to do something else than to stand still). Advantage: a prematurely died PC has something to do.

[McSmack]

Technically I would think they would still be under the command of their controller but unable to recieve orders. It's pretty standard that in DnD, death isn't the end. For game purposes the controller's soul is simply residing in another plane with little or no way to return on it's own. Arguing that the controller loses control of his undead just because his soul is on another plane could be problematic.

Does a necromancer lose control of his undead if he planeshifts or astral projects somewhere else and leaves his undead behind? I don't think that would be supported by the rules since they state he retains control indefinitely.

So I'd say that if his soul were returned to his body and he was alive/undead, he would instantly regain control.

[Gullintanni]

I would tend to think that since control is listed as indefinite by the Animate Dead spell, control is a function of the magic used to create the undead, rather than that of the caster being alive.

Given that, mindless undead will complete the last orders they were given to the best of their ability, then simply shut off and wait for orders. Undead with intelligence will do the same thing, they'll just do a better job of completing the last orders they were given.

Realistically, I see no reason why your Dread Necromancer couldn't issue a command to one of his intelligent undead that, "If I die, seek to have me resurrected with the highest possible urgency", and if the DN were to croak, then your intelligent undead would seek your resurrection.

[Taelas]

Agreed. Indefinite means you never lose control, even when dead.