If an OotS member dies, can they be raised as an undead?

[JessmanCA]

For example let's say Belkar dies in this battle. Can he be raised as an undead and if so what kinds?

Also: if he were raised as a Zombie or other undead (Ghoul or Ghast), would he remember who he is?

Or is remembering your past life unique to Vampires and Liches?

It would be kind of cool to see an all undead version of the OotS for awhile (as long as they go back to living at some point. Is that possible?)

[hamishspence]

For example let's say Belkar dies in this battle. Can he be raised as an undead and if so what kinds?

Also: if he were raised as a Zombie or other undead (Ghoul or Ghast), would he remember who he is?

Or is remembering your past life unique to Vampires and Liches?

It would be kind of cool to see an all undead version of the OotS for awhile (as long as they go back to living at some point. Is that possible?)

Zombies are mindless, so won't remember anything.

From Complete Divine:


Sometimes the undead creature can access the memories of the deceased (Vampires, specters, ghouls, and ghasts can) and sometimes they can't (as with shadows, wights, and wraiths).


Some undead creatures are souls, that died in very specific ways (allips are suicide victims, bodaks were "killed by the touch of absolute evil")

Then there's ghosts (nobody knows for sure why they come into being, but there's usually some kind of unresolved issue involved).

V has suggested that, if killed, V will come back as an angry and vengeful ghost:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0163.html

but that may in practice be an empty threat.

[KillianHawkeye]

It would be kind of cool to see an all undead version of the OotS for awhile (as long as they go back to living at some point. Is that possible?)

In order for a person who's turned into an undead to return to life, their undead form must first be destroyed. They then can be brought back by a Ressurection (or True Ressurection) spell. Normal Raise Dead won't do it, because it specifically doesn't work on somebody who's been risen as an undead. Wish and Miracle would also work in a pinch.

[NerdyKris]

If an OotS member dies, can they be raised as an undead?

We literally just saw that happen with Durkon.

[JessmanCA]

We literally just saw that happen with Durkon.

Duh? I'm talking about the others. And non-vampires. I thought it was clear that I knew this when I said "is remembering your past life unique to vampires and liches?" ie. Durkon and Xykon.

[b_jonas]

Durkon may technically be able to cast the Create Undead spell now. However, I believe he will probably not want to do that, especially not on an Order member, because he might still hate the undead. Note also that Durkon claimed to still have enough diamonds for one Resurrection spell, so if one of the Order apart from Durkon dies, he would be more likely to raise or resurrect them instead of animating as a zombie.

[Heksefatter]

Speaking only from a AD&D rules perspective, it is possible to cast the spell create undead, which can raise a character - depending on the level of the caster - as a ghoul, ghast, mummy or morhg.

This spell does not explicitly say whether the undead being keeps its memories. However, it does say that the undead in question is not under the control of the caster.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createUndead.htm

The monsters pages in the same reference doesn't really say anything about ghouls, ghasts, etc. keeping their personality and memories. Since all the mentioned undead have a degree of intelligence, it seems reasonable to assume that they keep some of their personality, much like Durkula did.

I don't see it happening, however.

[littlebum2002]

I cnanot vouch for the accuracy of this comment, but this person tries to list all of the core Intelligent Undead (as opposed to mindless undead)


In terms of individuals, maybe there are a lot more skeltons and zombies thna the sum of all other undead, but the number of types of intelligent undead definitely outnumber the unintelligent variety. Amoung the intelligent undead are Ghouls, Ghasts, Wights, Mummies, Vampires, Liches, Devourers, Nightwalker, Ghosts, and Spectres. That's without going to any of the other books.

Most undead are mockeries of humanity, and consequently they tend to have malevolent intelligence. Mindless intelligence tends to belong to constructs and oozes.

There are other non-core Intelligent undead. One which is commonly cited as an easy way to become undead for a PC is the Necropolitan template.

[AKA_Bait]

There are other non-core Intelligent undead. One which is commonly cited as an easy way to become undead for a PC is the Necropolitan template.

Yep. Also, although the Giant seems to prefer to work from core, we know he has gone outside of it for certain undead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0431.html). I think there's an argument that a Hecuva or Death Knight would remember at least some, if not most, of its prior life.

[Deliverance]

For example let's say Belkar dies in this battle. Can he be raised as an undead and if so what kinds?

Yes, he can, and there are many options.

The simplest would be to cast Animate Dead (Clr 3, Death 3, Sor/Wiz 4). One instant Zombie Belkar with no memories. Xykon loves this one as it is a free Zombie with each transaction (to quote SOD), and it prevents others from raising/resurrecting the slain until the Zombie is destroyed, and is thus multipurpose.

[b_jonas]

That reminds me, in #465, when Tsutsiko said he'd make the most powerful undead warrior (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0465.html) from the first body he meets, and that it will be free-willed and evil, what type of undead could that have been?

[Vinyadan]

It would be kind of cool to see an all undead version of the OotS for awhile (as long as they go back to living at some point. Is that possible?)

Could Durkon destroy other undead and resurrect them? Or selfresurrect?

[AKA_Bait]

It occurs to me that we also have proof in-comic that Create Greater Undead can create an undead creature that remembers its prior life, though it's not exactly clear what specific species of undead an animated black dragon head falls into (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html).

[rodneyAnonymous]

It occurs to me that we also have proof in-comic that Create Greater Undead can create an undead creature that remembers its prior life, though it's not exactly clear what specific species of undead an animated black dragon head falls into (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html).

The type of undead created by the spell depends on the caster level of the spellcaster, not the nature of the target. I don't think Vaarsuvius's caster level at that time was clearly established (though considering that spell probably came from Haerta, I'd go with that), but it does give us pretty solid evidence* that intelligent undead are the "same person" that they were when alive. Not only does she remember her life, which could be explained by the "other person" getting her memories, but she remembers her afterlife!

* I think Xykon's speech about becoming a vampire (etc) being a way to avoid the Big Fire Below is pretty good evidence for that, too, but unlike the ABD situation it can be argued that it's just, like, his opinion, man.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

@Thread title: If an OotS member dies, can they be raised as an undead?

No. No, because "they" is not plural in Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Seventh Edition. "They" cannot be raised as "an undead" because "an undead" implies one singular undead creature. Also, "undead", according to Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Seventh Edition, is an adjective.

Unless you are combining, say, Elan, Belkar, and Roy into one big undead (presumably with Elan forming the head).

[Domino Quartz]

@Thread title: If an OotS member dies, can they be raised as an undead?

No. No, because "they" is not plural in Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Seventh Edition. "They" cannot be raised as "an undead" because "an undead" implies one singular undead creature. Also, "undead", according to Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Seventh Edition, is an adjective.

Unless you are combining, say, Elan, Belkar, and Roy into one big undead (presumably with Elan forming the head).

What?? The third-person plural pronouns in English have been used to refer to a single unknown/non-specific person for a very long time.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

I know, but it's not in that specific dictionary, so I can truthfully say that it is not in Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Seventh Edition. That is the dictionary I use, and that is one of the reasons I use it (in that it feels really good to be able to say, "No, that's not in the dictionary I use", and then pull out that dictionary and show the non-pedant).

Why Seventh Edition? Because plural "they" is in all the other editions.

[KillianHawkeye]

Why Seventh Edition? Because plural "they" is in all the other editions.

Technically, it's the singular "they" that you are complaining about. The word "they" is plural by default (referring to a group of people).

[konradknox]

For example let's say Belkar dies in this battle. Can he be raised as an undead and if so what kinds?

Also: if he were raised as a Zombie or other undead (Ghoul or Ghast), would he remember who he is?

Or is remembering your past life unique to Vampires and Liches?

It would be kind of cool to see an all undead version of the OotS for awhile (as long as they go back to living at some point. Is that possible?)

Well, you remember what happened to Roy. The story split between his soul in the afterlife and his body being made into a bone golem. So sure, why not? Seems like a lesser version of undead, like a zombie, would be shambling about saying Braaaains, while real soul of the member would be in the afterlife, looking down at it with a bitter facepalm.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Well, you remember what happened to Roy. The story split between his soul in the afterlife and his body being made into a bone golem.

Bone golems are constructs, not undead.

[Vinyadan]

I know, but it's not in that specific dictionary, so I can truthfully say that it is not in Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Seventh Edition. That is the dictionary I use, and that is one of the reasons I use it (in that it feels really good to be able to say, "No, that's not in the dictionary I use", and then pull out that dictionary and show the non-pedant).

Why Seventh Edition? Because plural "they" is in all the other editions.

"This is my dictionary. There are many like it, but this is mine."

[Fnordius]

Bone golems are constructs, not undead.

Hm, well, you could also argue that many forms of undead are constructs as well. They have no memory of their future life, and obey commands. The vampire and the lich are the only examples where the intellect (if not the soul) is bound to the corpse, re-animating it. It was also suggested and accepted by many that for Durkon to return to the world of the living, his body would have to be destroyed as well.

You know, this raises an interesting question: does the vampire Durkon have the same soul, or has Durkon's soul gone on to Valhalla? Does the new spirit animating his body merely think it is Durkon, accessing his memories? Probably not, as there would have been mages and clerics in the OOTS-verse that would have already tested this. (Not that Durkon would know, though – he merely hated all undead and never bothered to study them much before becoming one himself)

[Trillium]

Hm, well, you could also argue that many forms of undead are constructs as well. They have no memory of their future life, and obey commands. The vampire and the lich are the only examples where the intellect (if not the soul) is bound to the corpse, re-animating it. It was also suggested and accepted by many that for Durkon to return to the world of the living, his body would have to be destroyed as well.

You know, this raises an interesting question: does the vampire Durkon have the same soul, or has Durkon's soul gone on to Valhalla? Does the new spirit animating his body merely think it is Durkon, accessing his memories? Probably not, as there would have been mages and clerics in the OOTS-verse that would have already tested this. (Not that Durkon would know, though – he merely hated all undead and never bothered to study them much before becoming one himself)

That raises another question. If you kill an evil (to avoid alignment changes) character and Trap his soul, so he doesn't get resurrected. Will turning him into a vampire just re-create same evil personality? O_O

[Kish]

"A free-willed wight, wraith, spectre, or ghost does not remember its past* life" is an assumption I will not be signing off on.

*Guessing that's what Fnordius intended; if "future" is not a typo, I don't have memories of my future life either; if everyone here does, I guess I'm undead or a construct.

[Poppy Appletree]

*Guessing that's what Fnordius intended; if "future" is not a typo, I don't have memories of my future life either; if everyone here does, I guess I'm undead or a construct.

I'm afraid I have bad news for you. :smallsigh:

[Kish]

BRAINS....

[AKA_Bait]

Technically, it's the singular "they" that you are complaining about. The word "they" is plural by default (referring to a group of people).

If we are going to get really pedantic here, "they" does not need its antecedent to be "people". Any plural noun will do. e.g., "the rats ate the poisoned cheese and they do not have long to live."


Hm, well, you could also argue that many forms of undead are constructs as well. They have no memory of their future life, and obey commands. The vampire and the lich are the only examples where the intellect (if not the soul) is bound to the corpse, re-animating it. It was also suggested and accepted by many that for Durkon to return to the world of the living, his body would have to be destroyed as well.

Strictly speaking, in 3.x and apparently in OotS, the difference is that negative energy animates an undead creature (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html) (of any type) and an elemental spirit (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0576.html) animates a construct.

[Anajamois]

I'm only surprised that Malack knew the spell to create a Vampire from a corpse. He IS a Cleric, after all.

...Of the God of Death. Huh. I clearly didn't think about that hard enough.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

...this is a thread about zombies, and somebody chooses to tangent into singular "they" pedantry? Surely they can't be serious. :smallwink:

[AKA_Bait]

Surely they can't be serious. :smallwink:

I am serious and don't call me Shirley!

[Vinyadan]

More on topic: I seem to remember someone quoting older editions, in which an undead creature was powered through the body's previous owner soul, which suffered unthinkable suffering. In this case, the undead is not the person who previously lived in the body, but either an intricate construction built through negative energy (mindless) or a "something" consciously occupying the body (minded).

The review then went on talking about the effects of an evil nature of negative energy, and what the effects would be.

I think the vampire is a different person. This seems not to be sure in OoTS because of http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html and http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html , which pretty much leave the thing unsolved.

Of course, I don't think it goes like this for everything. For example, a lich could retain the previous owner's soul. What makes me think that in other cases it goes through a change of occupying entity is the change in alignment. Why should a person become evil, just because they have been unwillingly turned into a vampire? However, becoming a lich requires to commit an act of unspeakable evil, so the change in alignment can be explained through this.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Hm, well, you could also argue that many forms of undead are constructs as well.

No, according to D&D, bone golems are constructs, and constructs explicitly work differently than undead. Golems (iron, clay, flesh, any kind) are a "body" inhabited by an air elemental, and don't tell you anything at all about how undead work. A preponderance of evidence suggests that Roy would have been pulled out of the afterlife and back into his body if he had been animated as an intelligent undead.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Technically, it's the singular "they" that you are complaining about. The word "they" is plural by default (referring to a group of people).

Right, singular "they". Silly me, getting that wrong.

[JBiddles]

In Start of Darkness,

Lirian's soul is trapped, and yet Xykon still raises her corpse as a zombie - indeed, he provokes Dorukan by threatening to have an ogre hack Lirian's body into pieces and eat it while Lirian's soul watched. Dorukan went on to say that, as a zombie, Lirian's body was entirely irrelevant to Lirian the person.

This implies that the soul has nothing to do with undead that are not sentient or not free-willed.


@Thread title: If an OotS member dies, can they be raised as an undead?

No. No, because "they" is not plural in Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Seventh Edition. "They" cannot be raised as "an undead" because "an undead" implies one singular undead creature. Also, "undead", according to Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Seventh Edition, is an adjective.

Unless you are combining, say, Elan, Belkar, and Roy into one big undead (presumably with Elan forming the head).

The English language, like all languages, is fluid to a degree, and many dictionaries contain omissions; the use of "they" as a singular pronoun is very old, widely used, and perfectly acceptable in informal language. Arbitrarily advocating the use of one's preferred dictionary before all others that contradict it is absurd. Furthermore, "undead" should be capitalised, in which form it is perfectly acceptable as a proper noun referring to the creature in D&D. Moreover, your second sentence implies that "they" is not used as a plural third-person pronoun in your favoured dictionary.

[Benthesquid]

Personally, I think that when Durkon dies, there's a decent chance he'll be raised as some sort of undead. I mean, it would really help advance his character arc, which has been sort of lacking compared to all the other main characters.

*looks at timestamp*

GREAT SCOTT!!!!

[Kish]

Personally, I think that when Durkon dies, there's a decent chance he'll be raised as some sort of undead. I mean, it would really help advance his character arc, which has been sort of lacking compared to all the other main characters.

*looks at timestamp*

GREAT SCOTT!!!!
You're just not thinking fifth-dimensionally.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

The English language, like all languages, is fluid to a degree, and many dictionaries contain omissions; the use of "they" as a singular pronoun is very old, widely used, and perfectly acceptable in informal language. Arbitrarily advocating the use of one's preferred dictionary before all others that contradict it is absurd. Furthermore, "undead" should be capitalised, in which form it is perfectly acceptable as a proper noun referring to the creature in D&D. Moreover, your second sentence implies that "they" is not used as a plural third-person pronoun in your favoured dictionary.[/QUOTE]

I know, I know. I actually prefer Ninth Edition to Seventh Edition, but I just like saying "singular They is not in the dictionary I use" because it makes me feel all justified in claiming it as not a dictionary-sanctioned usage. However, it is, in fact, a dictionary-sanctioned usage.

But yeah, as far as dictionaries go, all the others in that series contain a singular "they", so I really should accept singular "they".

I messed up in my second sentence. I meant to say that "they" is not used as a singular third-person pronoun in Seventh Edition.

Come on, you guys have almost all dictionaries on your side, and all the legitimate linguists and philologists. You guys have the authority and correctness, you've won; can't you be satisfied with that and let me have my pedantic fun?

[Fnordius]

Strictly speaking, in 3.x and apparently in OotS, the difference is that negative energy animates an undead creature (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html) (of any type) and an elemental spirit (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0576.html) animates a construct.

Ah, gotcha. So both are constructs of a type (at least what Redcloak says makes me think so), the biggest difference being in where the pilot of the animated corpse comes from. The lich and the vampire are unique in that not only the negative energy but also the spirit of the person are bound to their corpses.

Serves me right for being such a GURPS geek and not playing AD&D behind the 2nd edition.

And yes, "future" was a typo. I guess I was thinking too much about things like how in some legends, giving a zombie salt will break the spell and make the zombie turn against their master and forgot where I was in the sentence I was typing.

[Kish]

Ah, gotcha. So both are constructs of a type (at least what Redcloak says makes me think so), the biggest difference being in where the pilot of the animated corpse comes from. The lich and the vampire are unique in that not only the negative energy but also the spirit of the person are bound to their corpses.
I think it's a mistake to presume what Redcloak said is Mr. Cleric Explains It All About The World, rather than A Very Neurotic Man Rants About His Incorrect Beliefs.

Tsukiko's wights behaved exactly like Thrall Durkon. Most undead creatures have Intelligence and Wisdom scores in D&D; skeletons and zombies are the exception to the rule, not vampires and liches. I think reflecting on what it says about Tsukiko that, for all her vaunted "love" of the undead, she found excuses not to release her thralls from her magical chains even while she called them her children--just as Malack found excuses not to give Durkon his free will back even while calling him "brother"--is both more interesting and less likely to lead to somewhere inaccurate than creating artificial distinctions between one type of intelligent undead and another type of intelligent undead based on Redcloak's claims. Especially since Redcloak explicitly did not make an exception for liches; if he is to be believed, all undead are weapons and nothing more.