Mmmm...Libris Mortis.

[Nightfall]

I was especially disappointed that I didn't find any discussion as to why animating mindless undead (e.g. zombies and skeletons) is considered an "evil" spell with the [Evil] descriptor. What's the difference between that and constructs? The negative energy? If so, then why, for pete's sake? Tell me.

Simple. They screwed up.

And the "Necropolitan" is the dumbest ass monster I've seen in a long time. What's next? The Necrosexual? "Necrophilia in the City"? Whatever.

Hey now! Necrophilia is a very common practice! At least in Glivid Autel.

 

[Nightfall]

NPF! = No post Fool!

 

[Al'Kelhar]

ooo, just remembered the quesiton I popped in here to ask in the first place: is there any mention of the avolakia, the race of necromantic aberrations that use the undead as both thralls and livestock?

The avolakia appears in Monster Manual II.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Felon]

I was especially disappointed that I didn't find any discussion as to why animating mindless undead (e.g. zombies and skeletons) is considered an "evil" spell with the [Evil] descriptor. What's the difference between that and constructs? The negative energy? If so, then why, for pete's sake? Tell me.

Because it takes a sick mind to violate people's corpses. Because all the nice deities say don't do it. Because it's just plain wrong.

Quick question: is necrophilia any worse than using a blow-up doll (a primitive construct of sorts)? Sorry, even in our age of moral relativism, the answer is yes. :\

And the "Necropolitan" is the dumbest ass monster I've seen in a long time.

Well, have you checked out "The Slayer's Guide to Ass Monsters"? There are some pretty dumb ones in there. And how about Mongoose's "The Quintessential Ass Monster"? That one even has a template that you can apply to other another creature to make it a half-assed monster.

The avolakia appears in Monster Manual II.
Cheers, Al'Kelhar

I'm aware, thanks. I just keep hoping these extremely interesting monsters will get a 3.5 revision to actually make them worth a CR 10, or for that matter just so they can do what the descriptive text says they can do.

 

[Felonius]

I was especially disappointed that I didn't find any discussion as to why animating mindless undead (e.g. zombies and skeletons) is considered an "evil" spell with the [Evil] descriptor. What's the difference between that and constructs? The negative energy? If so, then why, for pete's sake? Tell me.

My explanation:
"Animate Dead, including similar spells and undead creation methods bind the dead creatures soul back to the corpse and use it to create a channel for the negative energies. The soul of the creature is prevented from seeking afterlife, remains partially conscious and is in constant pain due to the negative energies."

This means that inside the rotting being of every zombie or skeleton there is a soul writhing in agony, screaming in horror... for ever.

Until the undead is destroyed that is.

- F

 

[Felon]

"Felonius"? Man, get outta here!

 

[Cold0]

PrC List:

Death's Chosen - mortal pledged to an undead creature
Dirgesinger - a bard with necromantic abilities
Master of Radiance - channel the power of the sun
Master of Shrouds - control incorporeal undead
Pale Master - control over undead without giving up arcane power
Sacred Purifier - priests specializing in destroying undead
True Necromancer - combine arcane and divine power to be a more powerful necromancer

Undead Prestige Classes (PrC takeable only be undead creatures):

Ephemeral Exemplar - paragons of incorporealness
Lurking Terror - quintessential hunting undead, silent predators
Master Vampire - uses force of personality to control more spawn
Tomb Warden - selfless, undying protectors of the dead

Could someone give me more details about these PrC classes?
I don't want that someone violate the WOTC copyrights, just some more infos (something about the power ect.)..

Thanks anyways!

 

[Felonius]

"Felonius"? Man, get outta here!

Sorry. I didn't about you when I chose my handle...

- F

PS: Felonius was a name of my longest lived D&D character. I stole it from the Finnish edition of OD&D red box (I was 12 at the time). If I remember correctly, it was in the magic-user example of level titles. Instead of "I'm Felonius, a 2nd level magic-user", you should say "I'm Felonius, an illusionist" or some such.

 

[Arnwyn]

My explanation:
"Animate Dead, including similar spells and undead creation methods bind the dead creatures soul back to the corpse and use it to create a channel for the negative energies. The soul of the creature is prevented from seeking afterlife, remains partially conscious and is in constant pain due to the negative energies."

Actually, that's pretty much exactly my explanation as well. (Good stuff!) However, I was pretty disappointed that the so-called "Book of Undead" didn't even bother to try to explain it...

Well, have you checked out "The Slayer's Guide to Ass Monsters"? There are some pretty dumb ones in there. And how about Mongoose's "The Quintessential Ass Monster"? That one even has a template that you can apply to other another creature to make it a half-assed monster.

 

[BryonD]

It isn't even close to Draconomicon, and (IMO) if this is the way the monster books are going to go after Draconomicon, then the future doesn't bode well for the Aberrations book.

I think it is a good book.

But I agree that it is not as good as Draconomicon. Then again, I don't think that is a fair standard and I'm not certain I would say that any other WotC book is fully as good as Draconomicon.

Also, Dragons are ultimately a more narrow topic than undead, so I think that had bearing on this. This is also true for Aberrations and other creature types. So your boding is probably accurate. Though again, I don't see that as nearly as bad a thing as you seem to.

If WotC keeps producing books at the quality of Libris Mortis, then I will keep buying. If WotC produces a single book at the Draconomicon level in the next two years my joy will be surpassed only by my surprise.

IMO Draconomicon was an outstanding book that greatly exceeded expectaions. It isn't a good plan to make that your new standard because it just is not going to happen.

We have been getting a steady diet of pretty stones. Some look better than other and some have more flaws than others. Suddenly we get this brilliant diamond. I choose to be glad for the bonus. If someone is going to take the event of the diamond to no longer be satisfied with any future pretty stones, then I'd think they would be better off over all if they had never received the diamond.

LM is a pretty good book with some flaws. I'll keep it.