D&D General have we had a player race of undead?

[Voadam]

that is not a myth.

Sure, you can say that fiction, folkore, and myth are technically different, but then I am not sure what D&D undead from myth you are referencing.

Vampires are mostly from Dracula and movies. Zombies are from zombie fiction. Skeletons are not really from myth they are from things like the 1970s Sinbad movie. AD&D spectres were the Nazgul from Tolkien. Liches are mostly from R.E. Howard pulp fantasy and such. Most ghost stuff comes from ghost stories, not specific myths. Ghouls are mostly their own thing, partially a take on Lovecraft ghouls and Arabic Ghuls. Mummies are mostly from the classic Mummy movie.

There are a lot of folklore story basis for a bunch of D&D undead, such as banshees, but I wouldn't say there is a strong line between fiction and folklore stories.

 

[Tonguez]

Sure, you can say that fiction, folkore, and myth are technically different, but then I am not sure what D&D undead from myth you are referencing.

Vampires are mostly from Dracula and movies. Zombies are from zombie fiction. Skeletons are not really from myth they are from things like the 1970s Sinbad movie. AD&D spectres were the Nazgul from Tolkien. Liches are mostly from R.E. Howard pulp fantasy and such. Most ghost stuff comes from ghost stories, not specific myths. Ghouls are mostly their own thing, partially a take on Lovecraft ghouls and Arabic Ghuls. Mummies are mostly from the classic Mummy movie.

There are a lot of folklore story basis for a bunch of D&D undead, such as banshees, but I wouldn't say there is a strong line between fiction and folklore stories.

You know its now 101 years since the opening of Tutankhamuns tomb which sparked Tutmania in western media and subsequently rumours of the Curse of the Pharoah after the excavations sponsor Lord Carnarvon died 6 months later. It was that event that sparked the modern folklore of Mummys and Mummy curses and at 100 years is sufficiently antiquated to be established tradition. Ghost stories are also myth and while Romero style Zombie-Ghouls may only be 50 years old, theres no reason to discount their affect on modern disease folklore

NB in Night of the Living Dead the term Zombie isnt actually used, an in-movie news report mentions Ghouls instead

 

[Vaalingrade]

Zombie apocalypse fiction comes to mind.

Like I said, bad writing.

God, I hate zombie ghouls--they are freaking ghouls, Romero-clones-- fiction. They're such garbage monsters you have to start with them already having won so you can explain how an animal dumber than a lemming killed off an animal known for its automatic weapons.

 

[Voadam]

Like I said, bad writing.

God, I hate zombie ghouls--they are freaking ghouls, Romero-clones-- fiction. They're such garbage monsters you have to start with them already having won so you can explain how an animal dumber than a lemming killed off an animal known for its automatic weapons.

I actually hate D&D ghouls. Paralysis as their defining feature with no narrative explanation for it or folklore type basis for it and significant mechanical implications.

Claw Claw Bite for save or be paralyzed which usually means out of the fight entirely based on any one failed roll. Throw a horde of these low HD monsters against high level PCs in a confined space and a 20 to hit can come up decently quickly leading to the save or essentially die if there is a horde. Game design I really hate. 4e and 5e at least have save each round instead of just paralyzed for usually the rest of the fight.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I actually hate D&D ghouls. Paralysis as their defining feature with no narrative explanation for it or folklore type basis for it and significant mechanical implications.

No, no, I hate those too.

They're like the survivors of the antagonistic design all the way through the series.

Plus, they are another example of how D&D doesn't know what mythological monsters are and just gave powers by feel.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Sure, you can say that fiction, folkore, and myth are technically different, but then I am not sure what D&D undead from myth you are referencing.

Vampires are mostly from Dracula and movies. Zombies are from zombie fiction. Skeletons are not really from myth they are from things like the 1970s Sinbad movie. AD&D spectres were the Nazgul from Tolkien. Liches are mostly from R.E. Howard pulp fantasy and such. Most ghost stuff comes from ghost stories, not specific myths. Ghouls are mostly their own thing, partially a take on Lovecraft ghouls and Arabic Ghuls. Mummies are mostly from the classic Mummy movie.

There are a lot of folklore story basis for a bunch of D&D undead, such as banshees, but I wouldn't say there is a strong line between fiction and folklore stories.

a myth was at one point believed in, no one seriously considers zombies real.
there kind of is a difference I lack the technical term for it but folklore and fiction are not the same.
secondly, that does change my point in the slightest, zombies are nowadays seen as a disease which slowly necrotizes the body, not someone defying the laws of nature to make a terminator.

Like I said, bad writing.

God, I hate zombie ghouls--they are freaking ghouls, Romero-clones-- fiction. They're such garbage monsters you have to start with them already having won so you can explain how an animal dumber than a lemming killed off an animal known for its automatic weapons.

the point of it is it is a natural disaster with a face and can be stabbed hence the appeal it is a disaster you can stab to death.

No, no, I hate those too.

They're like the survivors of the antagonistic design all the way through the series.

Plus, they are another example of how D&D doesn't know what mythological monsters are and just gave powers by feel.

yeah the way I hear it ghouls are just robbing graveyards for food, not a death sentence by paralysis something can be a foe without being automatically death.

 

[Vaalingrade]

the point of it is it is a natural disaster with a face and can be stabbed hence the appeal it is a disaster you can stab to death.

I know that you can at least stab a blizzard to death in D&D. And that thing doesn't look deeply stupid when it runs.

yeah the way I hear it ghouls are just robbing graveyards for food, not a death sentence by paralysis something can be a foe without being automatically death.

In some traditions, they can become human again if they eat enough. Or become who they eat.

 

[Voadam]

a myth was at one point believed in, no one seriously considers zombies real.

OK, what D&D undead are you considering myth based by this definition? Possession ghosts? D&D vampires to go beyond Dracula fiction and movies to folklore ones?

I am trying to engage you on your terms about the point you raised about the myth basis of undead being evil or not.

 

[Mind of tempest]

OK, what D&D undead are you considering myth based by this definition? Possession ghosts? D&D vampires to go beyond Dracula fiction and movies to folklore ones?

I am trying to engage you on your terms about the point you raised about the myth basis of undead being evil or not.

true but the core is the blood-sucking monster of the night which has not changed never heard of a myth of undead hating the living utterly more either eating them or being angry for being wrong.

 

[Incenjucar]

We do need more cowardly skeleton comic relief characters.

 

[Vaalingrade]

We do need more cowardly skeleton comic relief characters.

I had Stop Motion Skeletons with a Comedic Failure special ability that caused them to destroy one another in a comedic manner on a miss. They were minions, so you could just pour a bucket of 'em on the party and watch the chaos.

 

[Voadam]

true but the core is the blood-sucking monster of the night which has not changed never heard of a myth of undead hating the living utterly more either eating them or being angry for being wrong.

OK so folklore vampires, like Eastern European pre-Dracula monsters risen from the grave to prey upon people and other variations from around the world. Sometimes literally the damned, or arising from curses such as from not being baptized or whatever. Lots of folklore with lots of variations leading to dead people rising up to prey upon the living. In any case usually sentient people preying upon people, similar to a mind flayer's situation. So not necessarily hating all life, just evilly preying upon people because of their situation/condition which is different from animals being predators. A lion eating a person would generally be considered neutral but Aslan choosing to do so would be considered to have moral culpability.

There is a difference between sentients preying upon the living and straight out hating the living, so yes, vampires are more classically evil predators.

As sentient predators there is room for variation, those who do it utilitarianly, those who revel in preying upon the living and do it more, and those who try to actively minimize their harm.

 

[Mind of tempest]

OK so folklore vampires, like Eastern European pre-Dracula monsters risen from the grave to prey upon people and other variations from around the world. Sometimes literally the damned, or arising from curses such as from not being baptized or whatever. Lots of folklore with lots of variations leading to dead people rising up to prey upon the living. In any case usually sentient people preying upon people, similar to a mind flayer's situation. So not necessarily hating all life, just evilly preying upon people because of their situation/condition which is different from animals being predators. A lion eating a person would generally be considered neutral but Aslan choosing to do so would be considered to have moral culpability.

There is a difference between sentients preying upon the living and straight out hating the living, so yes, vampires are more classically evil predators.

As sentient predators there is room for variation, those who do it utilitarianly, those who revel in preying upon the living and do it more, and those who try to actively minimize their harm.

they also believed all evil would join together which is not how evil works.
but my issue is not with vampires being blood-sucking monsters.
it is not evil that they eat humans unless you really go for the old Abrahamic belife in blood-sucking being somehow the worst crime ever they are antagonist you do not need a sob story to kill the bear that eat you cow.
it can't be moral if you have no choice in it, an obligate carnivore like aslan eating meat is a necessity for biological function as Jesus's furry costume is not immune to hunger or bankruptcy but is immune to nearly everything else.

regardless vampires is not every type of undead which was more my point.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

regardless vampires is not every type of undead which was more my point.

That's debatable. The term "undead" was coined by Bram Stoker specifically to describe Dracula. Zombies? Those are really just living people drugged into believing they are dead. Ghouls? Living people who survive off corpses - common in war zones. Skeletons? Invented by the 1963 Jason and the Argonauts movie. Previously, the children of the hydra's teeth where described as "knights".

But if you want to add a playable species you need to start with "what are the popular tropes associated with that thing". And when is comes to undead protagonists those are "I have to control my inner monster" and/or "I have to hide my true nature because the living believe my kind are monsters and hunt them". What it says in the creature type box is just to try and fit the game mechanics to the tropes. It's not the starting point. And yes, 5e already has this.

When you say "I am making X" but "my X has none of the tropes associated with X" then you aren't really making X at all. You original post might as well be "have we had a player race of wamfoozles?"

 

[Mind of tempest]

That's debatable. The term "undead" was coined by Bram Stoker specifically to describe Dracula. Zombies? Those are really just living people drugged into believing they are dead. Ghouls? Living people who survive off corpses - common in war zones. Skeletons? Invented by the 1963 Jason and the Argonauts movie. Previously, the children of the hydra's teeth where described as "knights".

But if you want to add a playable species you need to start with "what are the popular tropes associated with that thing". And when is comes to undead protagonists those are "I have to control my inner monster" and/or "I have to hide my true nature because the living believe my kind are monsters and hunt them". What it says in the creature type box is just to try and fit the game mechanics to the tropes. It's not the starting point. And yes, 5e already has this.

When you say "I am making X" but "my X has none of the tropes associated with X" then you aren't really making X at all. You original post might as well be "have we had a player race of wamfoozles?"

one of those is a lot more usable for a race than the other as controlling your inner monster is a class in d&d not a race.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

one of those is a lot more usable for a race than the other as controlling your inner monster is a class in d&d not a race.

It's nether. It's a gameplay decision made by the player. "Today I will not be a murder hobo."

 

[Shades of Eternity]

For the Hodgepocalypse, I did the Kamidavers. They are undead stunt people that were animated by the Fallen Lords. They were given free will and most left because of it.

Now they wander the North American looking for cheap thrills. As far as they are concerned, people trying to shoot them on sight is part of the fun.

Yes they are a viable pc species.

In fact, one of my PCs used one to make an undead version of the drill sergent from full metal jacket for his pc.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Wamfoozle Traits

As a wamfoozle you have the following traits:

Creature Type. You are Undead.
Size. You are Medium or Small. You choose the size when you select this species.
Speed. Your walking speed is 30 feet.
Unusual Nature. As an undead creature, you do not require air, food, drink, or to poop. However, you sleep and dream as if your were alive.
Positive Energy Undead. You are resistant to radiant energy damage and the spells Cure Wounds and Healing Word affect you as if your type was humanoid. You are immune to the effects of Turn Undead.

In [campaign setting name] wamfoozles [setting specific lore].

 

[Voadam]

they also believed all evil would join together which is not how evil works.

Not sure what they you are referring to here.

but my issue is not with vampires being blood-sucking monsters.
it is not evil that they eat humans unless you really go for the old Abrahamic belife in blood-sucking being somehow the worst crime ever they are antagonist you do not need a sob story to kill the bear that eat you cow.
it can't be moral if you have no choice in it, an obligate carnivore like aslan eating meat is a necessity for biological function as Jesus's furry costume is not immune to hunger or bankruptcy but is immune to nearly everything else.

Aslan eating meat is generally considered morally different from sentient Aslan killing and eating other sentients.

Most consider the mindflayers preying upon other sentients as evil and not morally neutral, even with it being part of their diet. Vampires who kill their prey would not be different. 5e liches sacrificing souls regularly to stay alive would not generally be considered morally neutral.

regardless vampires is not every type of undead which was more my point.

Sure, but most D&D undead are mostly based on fiction or D&D's own 40+ year tradition lore where they are malevolent evil spirits that prey upon people. Some ghosts are not necessarily evil in ghost stories and some D&D being the big exception. Howard's dead skeletal wizards (lich) are evil. Barrow wights and Nazgul are evil in Tolkien and this follows on for wights and AD&D spectres. Mummies in the classic movies are generally just curse punishment killing machines for trespassing.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It's nether. It's a gameplay decision made by the player. "Today I will not be a murder hobo."

murderhobo was an adaptation to how the game was made, plus people's desire for action without consequences.

Not sure what they you are referring to here.

it was an old belief about the monster in the old days of Europe.

Aslan eating meat is generally considered morally different from sentient Aslan killing and eating other sentients.

Most consider the mindflayers preying upon other sentients as evil and not morally neutral, even with it being part of their diet. Vampires who kill their prey would not be different. 5e liches sacrificing souls regularly to stay alive would not generally be considered morally neutral.

what is made of mean and non sentient? nothing.

mindflayer being in conflict with humans needs nothing to do with evil, whether they are evil is irrelevant to the conflict.

Sure, but most D&D undead are mostly based on fiction or D&D's own 40+ year tradition lore where they are malevolent evil spirits that prey upon people. Some ghosts are not necessarily evil in ghost stories and some D&D being the big exception. Howard's dead skeletal wizards (lich) are evil. Barrow wights and Nazgul are evil in Tolkien and this follows on for wights and AD&D spectres. Mummies in the classic movies are generally just curse punishment killing machines for trespassing.

that does not mean they half to be evil, being made of evil and choosing evil are different.

nazgul were corrupted closer to reforged than any other idea into weapons more tragic than some one who want to be cruel.

given howards ideas on good and evil are so removed from much of what both of us would agree it would be better to not even talk about it.

mummies are a good example they have nothing to do with evil instead having conflict with you over who gets stuff.