Undead

[Wizards of the Coast]

How can you describe to players the difference between a ghost and a specter? How do you show these undead creatures without making them all look the same? Jon gives you some things to think about this week, and then asks for your opinions. Come join the spooky fun!

Read Undead on D&D Insider here!

 

[GX.Sigma]

All the descriptions are good, but they all sound like ghosts. They sound like different kinds of see-through people. If they're supposed to be different types of undead, they should look totally different.

A quick Gatherer search for the "spirit" creature type reveals a whole world of incorporeal undead. You got see-through people ghosts, sheet ghosts, ghosts made of light, ghosts made of shadow, ghosts with chains and crap, and weird non-human ghosts. Then you got skeleton ghosts from Pirates of the Caribbean, fleshy skeleton ghosts from Lord of the Rings, non-human-skeleton-made-of-human-bones ghosts from Diablo 2... and everything in between.

Way too many possibilities to just use different kinds of see-through people.

 

[Blackwarder]

I disagree, see through people are corporeal, but there are many kinds of corporeal monsters.

I think that the descriptors are great, they give distinct differences between Ghosts, Specters and Wraiths without having to resort to pulling out a picture or the DM saying which is which.

Warder

 

[Klaus]

I think there could be a direct correlation of the creature's sense of identity and its appearance.

Ghosts: remember its life, may even be confused and not realize they're dead. Look like living people (albeit looking a but tired, with muted colors or somesuch), until interacted with, when they flicker or become slightly translucent.

Specters: are consumed with a sense of vengeance (upon the living, upon a specific person, upon themselves), and their tortured, single-minded existence takes a toll on their appearance. Their features are often contorted or distorted, they are somewhat translucent and glow.

Wraiths: they have no sense of their former lives, and have become creatures of living necrotic energy. They look like tattered shadow cloaks with glowing eyes. Some might display pieces of armor or weapons, but these are fabrications, not actual objects.

 

[Zaukrie]

I think Klaus and the article indicate some things.....

The ghost looks whitish bit opaque, and like its living self with clothes and whatnot. Clear features.

The others have less and less detail to them depending on how they rose/ why they rose. I thought there were fairly clear pieces there that would allow for different appearance.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I think one of the difficulties is that in almost every place outside of D&D ghost, specter, and wraith are pretty interchangeable. When they come from the same source, you have to do a more work to separate them. (Unlike mummy and zombie).

 

[JeffB]

I like these pics alot better than all the previous articles

 

[delericho]

As noted, the words 'ghost', 'spectre', and 'wraith' all mean pretty much the same thing in any non-D&D context. Therefore, this is an area where they basically have to go look at the old edition descriptions of the three, and describe them accordingly.

Without being able to reference my books, I would say that Klaus had it about right.

Edit: the other option, of course, is to do as GX.Sigma alluded, and have one monster that can be skinned a hundred and one different ways, thus covering the wide range of ghosts, spectres, wraiths, bogeys, apparitions, eidolons, and the like that exist out there. And thus, any given ghost can be more or less aware, more or less motivated by various things, and have various different powers. But I wouldn't expect WotC to go with that - in general, it's easier to use a toolbox of 20 subtly different but 'complete' monsters rather than a single multi-function monster that needs assembled first (as with the 3e Dragons).

 

[Zaukrie]

Those pictures do little to distinguish the first two creatures.

 

[Klaus]

Now that I've seen the pictures, I don't like any of them, actually.