Good-Flavored Evil?

[Quartz]

Having read the adventure, I think having an undead character is sheer folly. All the characters should go in with Contingent Resurrection on them, which won't work for an undead.

Spoiler

And there's a very high level EHP who might well Command your undead PC

. And the undead PC won't be able to benefit from Cure spells, Lay on Hands, etc. And there's the little problem of Mummy Rot. And so on.

 

[FireLance]

But I don't like it. Overall, I think the kind of thinking that gave us deathless is at the root of the problems we're talking about here. If it's undead, smite it! If it's deathless, be bestest friends with it! And what's the difference between undead and deathless? Why, the fact that you smite it if it's undead and be bestest friends with it if it's deathless! Poisoning people is abominable. But stealthily slipping "ravages" in their drink so their eyes burn out and they choke on their tongues is just fine, because it's a ravage and not a poison. And what's the essential difference that makes using ravages fine for Good characters, and using poison questionable? Why, the definition that using poison is questionable, while using ravages is fine! It's like Good and Evil aren't about what you do or think, but about what tag you have attached.

To a certain extent, I agree with you. Good and Evil should be more than just interchangeable and opposing labels. I think the whole deathless problem arose because the designers hardwired the assumption that undead == evil into the rules (through detect evil, the create undead spells, and the turn/rebuke dichotomy) and then later regretted it. Though it was not explicitly stated anywhere in the rules, you could come up with flavor reasons why creating undead and undead themselves were evil, e.g. creating undead basically enslaved a soul. However, while slavery is generally regarded as evil, dedication, service and self-sacrifice are generally seen as good things. So, when the idea of creatures that had willingly devoted themselves to a particular task or cause even beyond death came up, the designers (not necessarily the same designers) found themselves painted into a corner, and probably decided that it was better to create something new than to change the core rules (in pretty much the same way that WotC came up with better feats in PH2 and the martial adept base classes in the Book of Nine Swords instead of changing the core fighter ).

Seen from that perspective, the difference betwen undead and deathless is like the difference between a slave and a volunteer.

As for the difference between ravages and poisons, the key one to my mind is that ravages tend to be more discriminating since they only harm evil creatures. So, given the choice between a ravage and a poison, a good character probably would choose the ravage as it will not harm innocents, and could be seen as some form of natural justice. However, beyond that, the same morality ought to apply whether you are using a ravage or a poison. If it is considered dishonorable to slip a poison into an unsuspecting target's drink, it should be equally dishonorable to slip a ravage into his drink, too. If it is acceptable to use a ravage in a fight, it should be acceptable to use a poison in a fight as well.

 

[Merkuri]

Seen from that perspective, the difference betwen undead and deathless is like the difference between a slave and a volunteer.

Not to derail this thread, but there are undead that are volunteers. The lich comes to mind.

 

[sckeener]

Has there been a errata for the truenamer? I see that this mummy will be playing in an epic game and I thought truenamers became harder to play the higher in level.

 

[Aegir]

Has there been a errata for the truenamer? I see that this mummy will be playing in an epic game and I thought truenamers became harder to play the higher in level.

You might check Dicefreaks, I know they've expanded Truenamer into Epic.

 

[GreatLemur]

Deathless are not goodly undead, they're deathless; one is created with negative energy, the other positive. If you want to avoid this topic entirely, you can declare this mummy a "deathless mummy" (thus animated by positive energy) and likely all is well.

Actually, I think mummies are normally animated by positive energy . . . which makes the whole "deathless" type look pretty meaningless.

 

[Shemeska]

Actually, I think mummies are normally animated by positive energy . . . which makes the whole "deathless" type look pretty meaningless.

They're normally animated by negative energy. There was a 2e mention of some mummies being animated by positive energy, which was largely a cut and paste from a 1e mummy writeup from back really before undead had been defined by their link to negative energy.

And for the thread topic as a whole: Deathless are a redundant and/or dumb notion, and undead are not evil by any default.

 

[TarionzCousin]

In short, I agree with everyone.

As Clueless wrote, it really depends on the players.

A few other people suggested working something in to the backstory. That could really make a positive difference. My suggestion is to make the Paladin sympathetic; have his/her background include something about redemption being a noble and just cause favored by his/her deity.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Why not use the rulesset from the Book of Exalted Deeds to handle this situation?

 

[Squire James]

Hmm... under Pharonic traditions mummies are not necessarily evil. The most recent Deities and Demigods book refers to Osiris as a mummy/god and he's Lawful Good. If nothing else, I think mummies lose that "automatically evil" label in that culture. Maybe if the paladin is aware that the Mummy is a direct servant of a Lawful Good god, he might not smite...