Character Idea: Necromancer who wants to convince slaving cultures undead are more effecient

[Zhaleskra]

I just had this idea of creating a necromancer character skilled in diplomacy who hates slavery (yeah, raising armies of the undead is just slavery with more steps), and wants to convince slaving cultures the benefits of using undead instead of slaves. Of course, one of this character's obvious arguments would be the lower upkeep cost: you don't have to feed skeletons. What other points would be valuable to this character's arguments?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Zhaleskra]

Tangently, I love that you use Catra as your avatar.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Umbran]

What other points would be valuable to this character's arguments?

Well, the fact that usually, before mass media, one person does not address a culture. A person addresses another person. So, the task here is to find the people who own slaves, and sell them on undead.

Then, if he's successful, the slave traders will come after him, for cutting into their business. He has to defeat them.. or sell them on becoming part of the undead supply chain...

So, I'm thinking... used car salesman. Or maybe Amway.

None of this fits into what you'd normally consider adventuring activity. If your goal really is to change an entire cultural behavior then the GM needs to be on board with that being a major plot for the game. Otherwise, your shtick becomes a weird behavior that is disconnected from the actual deadly action of the game.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I had no illusions of this character having an easy time of it. Fully expect some of the first reactions that aren't outright violence to be calls of "weirdo" or worse.

 

[Umbran]

So that's one part of the equation ....

On the other part, you'd have to sell the idea that necromancy isn't a bad thing. Because there is a reason that undead are evil! So you'd have to both overcome the usual cultural squeamishness at messing with the dead (whose dead? is great aunt may going to be dug up?) as well as having the evil walking dead among the living.

Yeah. And that brings up a real question. You turn up telling slave owners, "Hey, you don't need slaves! You don't need to give food or decent housing to undead!"

What keeps them from going... "You know, you are right!" and slaughtering all their slaves to turn them into undead?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Zhaleskra]

I knew this would go dark. What about slaves they already executed for disobedience?

This person might be fun for a one shot, but I don't think they'd survive a campaign.

 

[Umbran]

The real limiter on this, in D&D, is numbers. You have to be a fifth level wizard to animate dead, you only get a couple per casting, and your control only lasts so long. This works fine for adventuring.

It is not so good when considering building a large body of undead to do work. Nor does it work if you only want a couple of house servants - you still need a living person there to control the undead. In general, it looks like the undead servants need more, and more highly trained, oversight than human slaves do. Does the guy who can throw fireballs (or cast whatever other impressive 3rd level spells) really want to stand there overseeing grunt labor every day?

Note also that if your overseer doesn't case Animate Dead every day, you have uncontrolled undead walking around.

So, this all isn't an argument against the character concept. It is an argument that the character's desired scheme... probably won't work. You need too many 5th level wizards with nothing better to do with their time than oversee mindless labor for this to function.

But, this would hardly be the first time a person tried to press culture to do a thing that doesn't actually work. :/