Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6271540" data-attributes="member: 58197">I do. Taboos fall by the wayside real fast when society finds a way to derive enormous benefit from breaking the taboo. And that's especially true when war is involved. Undead are the perfect soldiers--not because they're great fighters, but because the logistical concerns that weigh like shackles on a living army don't touch them at all. They can march twenty-four hours a day. They don't need food. They don't need water. They're immune to disease, which historically was far more deadly to a soldier than combat. They're cheap to recruit and totally loyal. They can even see in the dark! (And at night, a world without electric lighting is very, very dark.)All else being equal, a nation that was willing to raise an undead army would crush a nation that wasn't. Just maneuver around their plodding troops, dart into their home territory, and lay waste. Cut their supply lines, scorch the earth ahead of them, and watch them starve. After a while, the only nations left would be those that were willing to send their dead to war. Once that taboo had fallen, why not find a use for the undead in peacetime?Of course, under 3E and later rules, the supply of undead is limited by the supply of necromancers powerful enough to create and command them, so they wouldn't displace living soldiers altogether. But even a small force of skeletal troops would be invaluable as scouts and raiders. Without a compelling reason not to use them, they would quickly become widespread. &quot;They will blight the earth and leave both sides desolate&quot; is a compelling reason. &quot;They let Orcus control your brain&quot; is a compelling reason. &quot;They're icky&quot; isn't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 6271540, member: 58197"] I do. Taboos fall by the wayside real fast when society finds a way to derive enormous benefit from breaking the taboo. And that's especially true when war is involved. Undead are the perfect soldiers--not because they're great fighters, but because the logistical concerns that weigh like shackles on a living army don't touch them at all. They can march twenty-four hours a day. They don't need food. They don't need water. They're immune to disease, which historically was far more deadly to a soldier than combat. They're cheap to recruit and totally loyal. They can even see in the dark! (And at night, a world without electric lighting is very, very dark.) All else being equal, a nation that was willing to raise an undead army would crush a nation that wasn't. Just maneuver around their plodding troops, dart into their home territory, and lay waste. Cut their supply lines, scorch the earth ahead of them, and watch them starve. After a while, the only nations left would be those that were willing to send their dead to war. Once that taboo had fallen, why not find a use for the undead in peacetime? Of course, under 3E and later rules, the supply of undead is limited by the supply of necromancers powerful enough to create and command them, so they wouldn't displace living soldiers altogether. But even a small force of skeletal troops would be invaluable as scouts and raiders. Without a compelling reason not to use them, they would quickly become widespread. "They will blight the earth and leave both sides desolate" is a compelling reason. "They let Orcus control your brain" is a compelling reason. "They're icky" isn't. [/QUOTE]

Verification