Deathless template and LA

[metalbear]

What level adjustment would you recommend for the Deathless template from the Eberon campaign setting? One of my players wants to play this, and I am not sure the best way to determine what LA it should be, or even if it should have an LA. The deathless template gets
-12 hit die a level
-No con. score
-Darkvision 60 feet
-immunity to poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, and mind affecting spells
-Immune to critical hits and nonlethal damage, physical ability score drain, fatigue and exhaustion
-However, they are subject to energy drain, damaged by negative energy, and are healed by positive energy
-Immune to fortitude save effects with the exception of energy drain
-use cha on constitution checks
-no risk of massive damage death
-when reduced to 0 hit points, immedietly destroyed
-subject to turn and rebuke attempts opposite of what evil undead are

[Cuddly]

Treat it as the necropolitan template from Libris Mortis- lose a level + 1,000 xp.

[Teron]

That's not a template, it's a creature type like undead, outsider or animal. You could make a template whose only effect is to give the base creature the deathless type, but you really should know the difference. Since the necropolitan template does that with the undead type, it looks like the way to go.

[newbDM]

Treat it as the necropolitan template from Libris Mortis- lose a level + 1,000 xp.

I second this. Just switch Undead for Deathless, and you're down. Quick and simple. Just change the fluff around to suit your game/situation.

Maybe they have a separate application process for Deathless?

[Devils_Advocate]

I second the technical note that Deathless is a creature type, not a template. However, it would not be unreasonable to modify a living character by simply giving him the deathless creature type and its traits, and d12 hit dice (which are standard when undeadin' someone up). The Eberron Campaign Setting notes that the create deathless spell may be used to create additional deathless as determined by the DM, so there ya go. In fact, modifying a low-level warrior in this fashion gives you something pretty close to an Undying Soldier (see the Monsters section of the book), and why would the elves of Aerenal only reanimate fighter-types? Pfft, that'd be lame. It's not hard at all to imagine, say, an undying cleric.

Getting deathlessified in this fashion should obviously cost a level, 'cuz you don't want to go and make create deathless a way better option than raise dead, do ya? Bringing a new deathless character in one level lower than everyone else seems like enough to make up for the immunities and whatnot; not as bad as LA +1, which the benefits don't seem like quite enough to warrant, considering that there are some drawbacks.

I dunno if I'd copy the Necropolitan template, though, which does more than just change creature type. It only adds fairly minor things, but said things lessen drawbacks that balance out that big ol' list of immunities. I'd as soon leave them off, but not charge the extra 1,000 XP.

My first instinct is to say that the character would have to be an elf loyal to the Undying Court, since I don't really see them doing this for anyone else. But then I realized they totally could. "Fought with reclusive mystical people blah blah blah so impressed by his great honor and courage blah blah blah bestowed their special blessing blah blah wrapup excuse for being in campaign start location." For better or worse, that backstory practically writes itself. In this case, you even get to add in "valiantly fell in battle"...

[Project_Mayhem]

I'm interested in the character concept. Please tell.

[Renegade Paladin]

Eberron has deathless? Wow. And here I'd thought the concept had begun and ended with the BoED.

[The Rose Dragon]

Eberron has deathless? Wow. And here I'd thought the concept had begun and ended with the BoED.

Sad, but true. There are deathless running around by the hundreds in Eberron.

[RebelRogue]

Sad, but true. There are deathless running around by the hundreds in Eberron.

IMO, Eberron took the somewhat silly idea and turned it into something worthwhile: the basis of a NG religion that happens to be creepy as ****! At least I really like it!

[The Rose Dragon]

It would be even more creepy if it was with undead.

In fact, there is no reason for it not to be with undead.

[metalbear]

Thank you all for the advice, I am going to just modify the necropolitan with deathless traits.

Project Mayhem, from what my player told me so far about this character he is thinking something along the lines of a soldier who died trying to accomplish some great and valorous task (he has not been very clear as to what yet). He is thinking about the crusader right now.

[metalbear]

It would be even more creepy if it was with undead.

In fact, there is no reason for it not to be with undead.

The main reason why he doesn't want to go undead is that positive energy heals the deathless creatures. This gets around the problem of an undead character needing another wand just to be healed. Also, it fits the idea of a heroic warrior who was to dedicated for even death to stop.

[The Rose Dragon]

Well, in that case, it's clearly... whatchamacallit? METAGAMING.

I'd say "no, you can't play deathless - play undead instead and suck your weaknesses up".

The archetype of warrior too devoted to his cause for death rising as undead was there before the deathless came around. It worked fine (in 2nd Edition AD&D, for example).

[Ascension]

Sometimes a little metagaming can be a good thing. In this case, it helps not inconvenience the party the way a non-evil party with undead members is generally inconvenienced, meaning the DM doesn't have to compensate for their weaknesses quite as much in order not to kill them.* I don't see the problem with it.

*I see the DM's job as attempting to provide the party with interesting challenges on a regular basis without killing them. IMO the DM should only kill a party when they act stupidly enough to die in what should have been a non-fatal encounter and/or when they have done such stupid/mean-spirited/game-breaking stuff they fully deserve death.

[Teron]

It would be even more creepy if it was with undead.

In fact, there is no reason for it not to be with undead.

Except for the undeath versus deathlessness conflict that birthed modern Aereni society and one of Eberron's most powerful and influential villains, and the fact that deathless are sustained by worship and areas saturated with positive energy instead of feeding on the living, and the tension the Aereni's hatred of undead creates with the nation of Karrnath...

You don't have to get over your bias if you don't want to, but the deathless are intricately woven into Eberron and cannot simply be torn out and replaced with conventional undead.

[The Rose Dragon]

Except for the undeath versus deathlessness conflict that birthed modern Aereni society and one of Eberron's most powerful and influential villains, and the fact that deathless are sustained by worship and areas saturated with positive energy instead of feeding on the living, and the tension the Aereni's hatred of undead creates with the nation of Karrnath...

Strangely, my copy of ECS seems to lack those details. Which book is that from? Or which pages?

I checked Aerenal and the Blood of Vol entries, but neither of them seems to go into much detail.

The worship part can be done with the undead, too. You can simply say "hatred of non-ancestor undead" (since the entire deathless seem to be elven ancestors) to justify the Aerenal - Karrnath conflict.

Basically, the entire reason deathless exist is... you know what, I can't find a reason they exist. Other than the whole positive - negative energy duality created by BoED, deathless should rightly be good-aligned undead.

[Renegade Paladin]

You know, I didn't say I thought deathless were a bad idea, I said I had thought they had gone by the wayside along with the rest of the BoED. From a metaphysical perspective within the game world, it makes sense that positive energy could and would power deathless the same way negative energy does for undead, given that the positive and negative planes are mirrors of each other.

[metalbear]

As some of the other posters mentioned, the main reason the player wants to do deathless is he doesn't want to be tied down to negative energy like most undead are. Also, it is a lot easier for a good or neutral character to deal with the evil cleric's rebuke undead attempts. Instead of being dominated, he just runs away.

[The Rose Dragon]

From a metaphysical perspective within the game world, it makes sense that positive energy could and would power deathless the same way negative energy does for undead, given that the positive and negative planes are mirrors of each other.

Depends on the game world, I guess. In one of my campaign settings, the positive energy and negative energy are mirrors of each other - where one sustains life, the other one sustains death. Anything that is dead but remains animate, like the skeletons or vampires, are fed by negative energy. Anything that is fed with positive energy is either living or an outsider.

That brings up another question: why aren't deathless native outsiders in Eberron? Or even extraplanar outsiders, given their strong ties to Irian and their description of fleshless souls animated by positive energy?

[Cuddly]

Well, in that case, it's clearly... whatchamacallit? METAGAMING.

I'd say "no, you can't play deathless - play undead instead and suck your weaknesses up".

The archetype of warrior too devoted to his cause for death rising as undead was there before the deathless came around. It worked fine (in 2nd Edition AD&D, for example).

It's a good thing you're not his DM then.
/eyeroll

[The Rose Dragon]

It's a good thing you're not his DM then.
/eyeroll

Probably is.

Then again, I'm no one's DM. I'm usually the player in D&D.

[Teron]

Strangely, my copy of ECS seems to lack those details. Which book is that from? Or which pages?

I checked Aerenal and the Blood of Vol entries, but neither of them seems to go into much detail.

I'm sure you could find everything I mentioned scattered throughout various books, but Dragonshard articles are the best source of information about Eberron after the ECS.

Depends on the game world, I guess. In one of my campaign settings, the positive energy and negative energy are mirrors of each other - where one sustains life, the other one sustains death. Anything that is dead but remains animate, like the skeletons or vampires, are fed by negative energy. Anything that is fed with positive energy is either living or an outsider.

An overdose of positive energy kills just as surely as negative energy (notice that the Plane of Positive Energy tends to come up in discussions on killing the Tarrasque). Living creatures are sustained by neither, but merely experience opposite effects when exposed to one or the other; a being fueled by either is equally unnatural. At least, that seems to be the default assumption, and the one that makes deathless plausible.

That brings up another question: why aren't deathless native outsiders in Eberron? Or even extraplanar outsiders, given their strong ties to Irian and their description of fleshless souls animated by positive energy?

None of the official Eberron deathless are incorporeal ("fleshless souls"), and anyway, undead should be outsiders too by that logic - you just have to replace "Irian" with "Mabar" and "positive" with "negative".

[The Rose Dragon]

None of the official Eberron deathless are incorporeal ("fleshless souls"), and anyway, undead should be outsiders too by that logic - you just have to replace "Irian" with "Mabar" and "positive" with "negative".

Well, I do make Ghosts outsiders, courtest of Ghostwalk.

How is "disincarnate souls, sometimes wrapped in material flesh, often incorporeal" not similar to "fleshless souls"?

Vampires are undead because they are simply the body, not the soul, animated. In fact, most corporeal undead are soulless, thus not eligible to be outsiders (due to their whole soul and body being one schtick).

Incorporeal undead should probably be outsiders because there is nothing physical animated there.

But I'll be the first to admit that I am not good at debating, and that I've derailed this thread more than a bit.

Maybe we should take it to its own thread.

[Devils_Advocate]

Well, in that case, it's clearly... whatchamacallit? METAGAMING.

No, metagaming is making in-character decisions using out-of-character knowledge. Character creation is out-of-character, unless you expect a player to actually start with an infant character and then mentally play through all the important life events that develop its personality and abilities until it reaches level 1. And I'm pretty sure that that's more effort than most DMs expect a player to put into a backstory.

If you want a term for silly fluff chosen because of the benefit of the corresponding crunch, might I recommend "cheese"? Of course, this is entirely a matter of player intent: A tripping, spiked-chain-wielding, battlefield control warrior built that way because the rules make a ridiculous fighting style stupidly effective is cheese; the same character made because the player thinks that fighting style is cool is not cheese (but still ridiculous).

From a metaphysical perspective within the game world, it makes sense that positive energy could and would power deathless the same way negative energy does for undead, given that the positive and negative planes are mirrors of each other.

Well, obviously they don't perfectly mirror each other. Unliving creatures powered by positive energy (deathless) and living creatures healed by negative energy (Tomb-Tained Soul feat) may exist, but are exceptions to the general rules, presumably for a reason. It's like how we can infer asymmetry between the behavior of matter and antimatter, based on the observed surplus of matter.

Depends on the game world, I guess. In one of my campaign settings, the positive energy and negative energy are mirrors of each other - where one sustains life, the other one sustains death.

Assuming that by death you mean a lack of life, this would seem to make each of positive and negative energy the absence of the other -- like light and darkness. Given that positive and negative energy are often associated with light and darkness, that seems fairly appropriate. Reanimating a corpse, then, would magically make its lack of life behave like life, in the same sort of way in which a darkness spell magically makes a lack of light behave like light.

Vampires are undead because they are simply the body, not the soul, animated.

According to Complete Divine, undead spawn (vampires, wights, ghouls, wraiths, shadows, etc.) have the souls of the creatures they rose from trapped within them. This would explain why getting turned into an undead prevents resurrection, except that that rule also applies to dudes whose corpses were reanimated long after their souls buggered off to the Outer Planes. But then, it looks like you can turn a long-departed soul into a wraith by casting create greater undead on its corpse... Hell, I dunno. I doubt that even the game designers had a clear idea of how this all was supposed to actually work.

I'm not clear on what you meant here, though. Vampires don't have animated souls? Are the souls of living creatures animated? What does that even mean?

Incorporeal undead should probably be outsiders because there is nothing physical animated there.

This looks to me like an example of what I believe Scott Adams once termed Total Logical Disconnect, e.g. "I like pasta because my house is made of bricks."

Outsiders are physical, corporeal beings. Why would you think that incorporeal undead fit in with them better than with corporeal undead?

Now, if you say that incorporeal creatures seem special enough to warrant their own creature type, that's different.

But I'll be the first to admit that I am not good at debating, and that I've derailed this thread more than a bit.

Maybe we should take it to its own thread.

Bah! There already a consensus on the answer to metalbear's question, and he has accepted said consensus. The current discussion isn't preventing the original issue from being dealt with, it's already been dealt with.

This thread is OURS now! Mwahahahaha!

[The Rose Dragon]

Hell, I dunno. I doubt that even the game designers had a clear idea of how this all was supposed to actually work.

That's the problem. WotC has little consensus on how the undead work. One editor thinks they are supposed to be evil because they are powered by negative energy. The other one disagrees and makes revenants and ghosts, which lack the Always Evil alignment of other undead. Another one also disagrees and makes Inflict spells non-evil. In fact, the entire Negative Energy Plane is unaligned, so we have no idea what they're supposed to mean in the books.

Then we have Necromancy spells like Deathwatch having the [Evil] descriptor "just because". In fact, that seems to be the descriptor-justification for many of the mechanics with WotC. That may be why I prefer M&M, where mechanics have no intrinsic descriptors themselves, yet the latter still play an important role.

[Devils_Advocate]

If you want a to put a spin on necromancy that requires as little change to the existing rules as possible, it's probably simplest to say that negative energy just has a natural affinity for Evil and a natural aversion to Good... and that's it. This explains why Evil clerics can channel negative negative energy to spontaneously cast inflict spells and rebuke undead, and Good clerics can't. It explains why Good clerics can't cast some negative-energy-harnessing spells like deathwatch, even if casting them isn't an Evil act. It explains why almost all types of undead are Evil. Many forms of necromancy exploit negative energy's natural affinity for Evil to get it to do its work.

Positive energy, on the other hand, either lacks a natural affinity for Good, or at least has a much weaker affinity for Good than negative energy has for Evil. It's fundamentally opposed to negative energy, but, as I mentioned above, not a perfect mirror. And so living beings can have their souls produced in the positive energy plane and be healed by positive energy and everythin', and still have their alignments all over the place. This explains why you have to use just the right magic and the power of a special manifest zone to artificially couple positive energy to Goodness and then cram it into a dead guy in order to create special shiny anti-undead, and even then they're only usually Good. That's just not something that positive energy naturally does, it has to be forced. Meanwhile, negative energy will go ahead and make undead on its own if there's enough death, evil, darkness, atrocity, and general ickiness about.

Obviously, this explanation doesn't justify all of the rules, and indeed some rules are outright unjustifiable. For example, your basic bog-standard zombie is literally a walking contradiction, as a single creature can be at most one of Evil, mindless, and blindly obedient to its master. But I think it's a fairly helpful perspective for making sense of a lot of things as they are.