"good" undead race?

Deathling said:
What if a bunch of necromancers began making the undead move for a good cause? Their leader wouldn't be undead, but they would only produce undead as units. Of course, this would change their whole growth process. The citizens would either be offsprings of the necromancers, or the new undead (those necromancers who died and were instantly reanimated?), basically they would never die of hunger because of all of the working undead and even if the lands weren't sterile, they would just die and become undead citizens.

MEANS gentlemen, MEANS. Morality does not like in the "what" or even the "why" but the HOW. Good intentions aside, the means of pursuing goals is what makes something evil or good. And while we can argue about necromacy NOT being evil, it is hard to claim that necromacy is EVER good. Anything dealing with death, and the control (even to good ends) therein is not a "good" means. Let me put it this way. You have a guy, he's magical. WHy should he use Zombies to build the childrens hospital, when he could use telekenesis? WHy use magic at all when he could HIRE laborers? The point is that while yes, it might be COOL, and we dont necessarily want "bad guys" THe fundamental truth is that someones corpse (even ones own) is being used to an end. This USE as a means, cannot justify the ends. The best "undead" peoples can do is neutral, not "good". And while there may be individual exceptions to this rule.....some profoundly intersting characters...it is hard to concieve of a society/civilization that is benevolent, caring, and just, while also making use of the undead. We can try to neuter to our best abilities the social stygmas attached to death and undeath, but that does not neccessitate "good" all it does is remove the "evil". "To not be evil" does not imply "to be good".
-Qes

P.s. Yes im rehashing, and only because I want to make it clear that we can come up with "exceptions" all day long, but there are reasons they are "exceptions" and not the norm.
 
Nikis-Knight said:
Well, you really only need one good undead for a civ, as long as he/she/it is powerful enough to maintain cities worth of zombies and skeletons... lol, which is a bit unlikely, since achmages and such still only get one each.

This is an intriguing idea. I do love the ocnecept of the Tragic good despot. The good leader plauged with the responcibility of keepin an evil/undead civilization in check? LIke a zoo-keeper who cares for his dangerous animals. That idea is very lucrative. It is not the society that is good, but instead the tragic figure who must stand guard over, and guide it.

THIS I like.
-Qes
 
Nikis-Knight said:
Especially tragic since he knows that the dark power that he traded his soul to is quite displeased by his turn towards tha light. There will be a reconning someday for working against his "masters"...

Ok I give. This is drool-worthy coolness. Nikis! It's on you! Make it work, as I've now conceded my anti-good-undead civ points. But only if its in the manor you've described and ingeniously cultivated. I expect nothing less than your best!
-Qes
 
Why not have an undead society thats more like a group of 'clans' or a tribe? Necromancer 'Houses' make up the civilization and they use the mindless undead under them to wage war on each other / joint enemies and to do the grunt work of the empire. Sorta like the Embers, except with necromancers and undead rather than orcs and goblins.
 
I don't really see how making a whole new "good undead" civ is better than simply starting a game as the Calabim and becoming an order civ, or starting as the Bannor and adopting the veil? Then you get the combination of good evil you need, and the rest goes on in your head, no? Kinda like taking Gandhi off on a rampage to destroy the world, you make the story up as you go along.
 
While the idea of 'good' undead seems quite plausible to me, the very thought of it taking the form of angelic/spiritual beings ruling over a bunch of humans is rather... silly. To be honest, it would be extremely hard to say it's something new, as we already have civs that are commanded by angelic-like createrus (Basium, or Grigori). I would approach it from entirely different ways.

From my point of view there two main problems of such a civ:
1. The morals of theirs would be something completely unique and maybe a bit hard to grasp
2. They would have hard time being accepted by other 'good' civs (and since they would consider themselves good after all, others as well).

Point 1:
The primal community from which the civ derived had unusual beliefs, based on some strange occurances. Maybe it's members were very strongly linked to death magic and even subconciusly could use it for their own good - and I don't mean the individuals, but community. It was natural for them that once someone dies his body should be animated, yet treated no longer as a person but automaton, capable of doing simple tasks. Those people could believe (or even indeed know), that the soul left the body only to be reborn later on, therefore no mourning would occur and they would feel free to use those 'zombies' to do manual tasks or defending the community (no pain and the ability to fight on no matter what making them very valuable soldiers).The main problem would be to make such a husk not fall apart, so it would require many embalming rituals performed on regural basis (thus making it hard to maintain a large number of such creatures).
This may seem extremely abstract to some, but basically it comes down to the basic system of principles this community would have. Death being no big deal to them and raising the dead coming natural.
Now, how could such a radical civilization could come from? I'd believe that they could be people similar a bit to the Doviello, yet absolutely different. Having to live on the surface during the ice age they had to find a way to survive but instead of pillaging they adopted a way of using any resource availible. And the main resource were the dead. They might even bear an animosity towards Diovello. When the ice age ended they had no important stimulus to cease practicing their ways and therefore they didn't.
So, what I'm proposing is a civ that would resent trapping immortal souls but find using the carcesses and corpses as extraordinairly efficient and acceptable way of getting manual labor (and soldiers).

Point 2:
When other nations started to emerge they must have been quite startled by a community of the living who freely practice raising of the dead. The lack of 'proper' respect for the fallen would even be a shock for some. But seeing that those people were very open-minded and didn't tend to warmongering at all they could be accepted. There still seems to be the penalty in diplomacy for using death magic (ie. having a death mana node) and I think this would perfectly represent the unease of these people toward this 'undeady' civ. Still, those who would have a more evil approach of using the dead and/or the living would meet with utter disrespect of those peaceful people, who would tend to care for their lives and for those around them.

Please notice that this not a full civ but just a few basic concepts for them and should be treated as a fundamental for a true civilization rather than a finished idea.

Btw, there was a kind of undead non-evil society in Planescape: Torment, where you could freely talk with it's members (who were zombie, as far as I recall), but I don't think they were good as well.

Cheers
 
dreiche2 said:
Also, another example of a people of undead which are at least neutral can be found in the game with the best story ever: planescape: torment.

Hey, I had that first :p

I think they were neutral...
 
I like the idea with good undeads. Lived evil and want to come back, redoing everything into good.
 
Back
Top Bottom