Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 07:36:46 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 06:15:28 PM
Dude, you need to study Mexican customs/beliefs before talking.

Only one day, (two really because children and adults are separated) the spirits of your dead family wander in the world of the living and are given offerings of their favourite food/drinks/toys alongside flowers, candles (so they can find their way with the zempazutchil and the light). It's more worship of the ancestors than any undead shit.

The vampires in nahuatl culture were not undead but Nahuales, like the tlahuelpuchi.

Ghosts aren't undead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_in_Mexican_culture

There is nothing in that link to say that ghosts either are undead or are not undead, or that contradicts anything that I said. In D&D, "undead" is a broad game category that includes not just physical creatures like vampires and liches, but also incorporeal spirits of the dead like ghosts, wraiths, and spectres. That's not a modern D&D thing - it's been true since at least AD&D1.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 06:15:28 PM
Now back to the vampire, if it drinks human blood (or any other sentient species) it's at best a parasite and at worst a predator.

Lets go with the parasite first: Is it amoral to drink the blood of unwilling sentient victims to stay alive? No, it's immoral because it violates consent.

Now lets take the predator: Is it amoral to drink the blood of any sentient being and thus killing it probably creating another predator in the process? No, it's immoral since the only time killing is a moral thing to do is when defending yourself against unprovoked and unjustified violence.

By your definition, pretty much every adventurer I have ever seen is evil -- because they both harm and kill other sentient beings, usually not in pure self-defense. More broadly:

(1) In many if not most myths, vampires can drink the blood of non-sentient animals - not just humans. This is the behavior of some fictional good vampires like Angel (from the TV series), who typically drinks sheep or pig blood. In English, "predator" is an animal that hunts other animals - not something that specifically eats only sentient beings.

(2) Even if the rules are that they can only gain sustenance from sentient beings, the vampire could feed only from either willing donors or targets that they would harm for other reasons. Willing donors are not impossible -- much of the whole modern medical system uses donated blood and other organs to keep others alive.

1.- Challenged over your ignorance of Mexican prehispanic (I know, I know) myth you withdraw to D&D. Yep, In D&D things work in a certain way, but you were talking about our myths, my comment answer to our myths not to how D&D handles shit (ussually very baddly).

2.- Back to myths are we? In some myths I'm sure that's true, but that's nowhere in your original post I'm answering to. Predator means the same in every language as far as I know, but predator means there's no willing donor doesn't it? You can have one or the other not both. I made a very big effort to try and differentiate animals from sentient beings, not sure why you think this is you pwoning me.

3.- And we're back to games, correct, a vampire could feed from willing donors, making him a parasite, if the feeding ends up creating another undead bloodsucker I would still say this is evil. LOL, so me donating my organs after my death or donating blood is the same as a vampire biting me... Because something that can (as most myths claim) mesmerize it's victims somehow doesn't negate or at least put in doubt the whole free will thingy.

In every myth I know of vampires are evil, you can twist yourself into a pretzel and in your games do whatever. Doesn't mean that the whole postmodernist thing of negating Evil & Good exist even in fictional form FFS is something that ends up turning everything into moral grey mush.

Boring moral grey mush.

Don't you love it when white saviors try to explain your own culture to you, Geeky?

LOL.

(I've always been fascinated by the Day of the Dead celebrations. I should insert something similar into my game world just to mess with the players a bit.)

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 08:11:12 AM
Don't you love it when white saviors try to explain your own culture to you, Geeky?

LOL.

(I've always been fascinated by the Day of the Dead celebrations. I should insert something similar into my game world just to mess with the players a bit.)

Or why if a non-white person is not offended by something why they should be. Or how a handful of Jewish players who are offended means everyone and anyone within the Jewish community is offended by the word.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 07, 2021, 05:38:13 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 07, 2021, 04:53:38 PMI actually got the idea for using koschie from Grimm tv show, which uses it as a type of monster, and from wiktionary which claims "kostěj" (koschei) is a Czech translation of the D&D lich.

It comes more from eastern european folklore. Koshei the deathless, a Lich/Deathnight combo.

Anyway, I think Lich by itself is fine. Comes from Lichyard, and by itself refers to a Spellcaster with a specific soul-holding item that makes you evil. There are plenty of other evil types of undead, but I feel that Lich is pretty Iconic and cool.

Honestly I somewhat feel like we are trying to give a new name to something that was fine for the past 50 years or so. So what if its language roots no longer make perfect sense? Thats 95.99999997% of language anyway.

If I where to make original undead, I would make original undead. Liches by themselves are products of 'mass production' so their general similarity makes sense to me.

Normally I'd agree about the language drift, but it only has that meaning in D&D and derived fiction because Gygax didn't know what it meant when he recycled it from the Kothar stories. I'd prefer to use lich instead of zombie because it sounds evocative and is less anachronistic (insofar as that makes sense).

I think we can have our cake and eat it too by adding qualifiers to the name to reflect that the D&D lich is merely one type of lich. For example, lich mage or elder lich or something. Altho that's probably more appropriate for an original fantasy fiction rather than trying to retrofit D&D.

Even the D&D definition is undergoing some linguistic drift. I've seen it used for magical girls and as a generic name for undead in youtube videos. The D&D meaning is steadily watering down.

EDIT: Also, the word "lichyard" and other pre-D&D words using "lich" are not using it in the same sense (i.e. an undead wizard with a soul jar), but in a generic sense of "death" and "corpse" depending on the exact context. Lichfield is not the "Field of Undead Wizards with Soul Jars," it's the "the field of dead bodies."

It's like the argument about orcs. It's your campaign. Make your undead however you like.

Your vampires can be like those freakshow nightmares from Lumley's Necroscope; or spirits puppeting a preserved corpse; or damned souls; or some strange biological offshoot. It's your game.

(personally, my go-to for unnerving undead has always been a toss up between the mohrg and the bodak)

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 09:56:01 AM
It's like the argument about orcs. It's your campaign. Make your undead however you like.

Your vampires can be like those freakshow nightmares from Lumley's Necroscope; or spirits puppeting a preserved corpse; or damned souls; or some strange biological offshoot. It's your game.

(personally, my go-to for unnerving undead has always been a toss up between the mohrg and the bodak)

My argument is semantic. To put it simply, I am disappointed that we can't use words like phylactery or lich in their original real world meanings because the fandom is full of autists who would find it confusing even though real language is chock full of ambiguities like that. The English word "set" has 430 distinct meanings.

I'm not saying we should stop calling them phylacteries and liches, since in a pedantic way they still count. The D&D lich is still a dictionary lich (i.e. a corpse), just with a ton of extra baggage tacked on (reanimated, wizard, soul jar). And it's profane phylactery is still a dictionary phylactery (i.e. a protected container of holy relics) in the same sense that a Satanic mass is still a mass.

That's semantics. Words can have multiple meanings, and there are multiple words to describe a given object.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 08:11:12 AM
Don't you love it when white saviors try to explain your own culture to you, Geeky?

LOL.

(I've always been fascinated by the Day of the Dead celebrations. I should insert something similar into my game world just to mess with the players a bit.)

O yeah, I love it, but it's got less to do with saviours than with ignorance, sadly most Americans are deeply ignorant of their own culture and even moreso about any one else's.

Just remember that the parade is something invented by Hollywood for a Bond movie in recent years. As far as I know the custom has more in common with the Japanese worship of the ancestors, and if I'm not mistaken there was (originally) some type of punishment for failing to do so, your dearly departed ghosts became angry I think.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 09, 2021, 10:10:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 09:56:01 AM
It's like the argument about orcs. It's your campaign. Make your undead however you like.

Your vampires can be like those freakshow nightmares from Lumley's Necroscope; or spirits puppeting a preserved corpse; or damned souls; or some strange biological offshoot. It's your game.

(personally, my go-to for unnerving undead has always been a toss up between the mohrg and the bodak)

My argument is semantic. To put it simply, I am disappointed that we can't use words like phylactery or lich in their original real world meanings because the fandom is full of autists who would find it confusing even though real language is chock full of ambiguities like that. The English word "set" has 430 distinct meanings.

I'm not saying we should stop calling them phylacteries and liches, since in a pedantic way they still count. The D&D lich is still a dictionary lich (i.e. a corpse), just with a ton of extra baggage tacked on (reanimated, wizard, soul jar). And it's profane phylactery is still a dictionary phylactery (i.e. a protected container of holy relics) in the same sense that a Satanic mass is still a mass.

That's semantics. Words can have multiple meanings, and there are multiple words to describe a given object.

As an Autist that has no problem with you using whatever word in whatever way let me ask you:

Your complaint is not being able to use the original meaning of a word while still using the D&D one? In the game?

So I'm the GM and I'm telling the party they find A Lich and they don't know what the fuck I'm talking about because it has several meanings, so I need to especify what do I mean by Lich. This time.

Yeah, I can see how that would make the game faster & more fun for everybody

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 08:51:50 PM
Challenged over your ignorance of Mexican prehispanic (I know, I know) myth you withdraw to D&D. Yep, In D&D things work in a certain way, but you were talking about our myths, my comment answer to our myths not to how D&D handles shit (ussually very baddly).

I still don't see how you disagree with anything I said about the myth. You don't disagree that ghosts aren't all evil in Mexican myth. Instead your claim is that "ghosts aren't undead" - but undead isn't a term used in myth.

In Mexican prehispanic myth, I've read the Popol Vuh which is the most extensive primary source, along with a scattering of secondary sources. In the Popol Vuh, lots of the action in the underworld with the Xibalban lords is about crossing the line with death, like Blood Moon getting pregnant from a head hanging from a tree, or Xbalanque and Hunahpu ​instructing seers on how to treat their bodies to be raised again after death.

I'd agree that Day of the Dead has similarities to ancestor worship in Japan or China. (Less so Korea, as far as I know.)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 08:51:50 PM
And we're back to games, correct, a vampire could feed from willing donors, making him a parasite, if the feeding ends up creating another undead bloodsucker I would still say this is evil. LOL, so me donating my organs after my death or donating blood is the same as a vampire biting me...

In the modern day, if someone has a bone marrow condition where they require regular blood transfusions, does this mean that they are now an evil parasite?

Conversely, suppose in a fantasy game, there was a magic ritual that could save the life of one person by using the fresh heart of another person. Would this would be inherently evil black magic, in your view?

From my view, neither of those are inherently evil. They can be used for evil, but they are in themselves neutral.

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 12:29:15 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 08:51:50 PM
Challenged over your ignorance of Mexican prehispanic (I know, I know) myth you withdraw to D&D. Yep, In D&D things work in a certain way, but you were talking about our myths, my comment answer to our myths not to how D&D handles shit (ussually very baddly).

I still don't see how you disagree with anything I said about the myth. You don't disagree that ghosts aren't all evil in Mexican myth. Instead your claim is that "ghosts aren't undead" - but undead isn't a term used in myth.

In Mexican prehispanic myth, I've read the Popol Vuh which is the most extensive primary source, along with a scattering of secondary sources. In the Popol Vuh, lots of the action in the underworld with the Xibalban lords is about crossing the line with death, like Blood Moon getting pregnant from a head hanging from a tree, or Xbalanque and Hunahpu ​instructing seers on how to treat their bodies to be raised again after death.

I'd agree that Day of the Dead has similarities to ancestor worship in Japan or China. (Less so Korea, as far as I know.)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 08:51:50 PM
And we're back to games, correct, a vampire could feed from willing donors, making him a parasite, if the feeding ends up creating another undead bloodsucker I would still say this is evil. LOL, so me donating my organs after my death or donating blood is the same as a vampire biting me...

In the modern day, if someone has a bone marrow condition where they require regular blood transfusions, does this mean that they are now an evil parasite?

Conversely, suppose in a fantasy game, there was a magic ritual that could save the life of one person by using the fresh heart of another person. Would this would be inherently evil black magic, in your view?

From my view, neither of those are inherently evil. They can be used for evil, but they are in themselves neutral.

You have read some of the myth, that's Mayan myth, not all myths were Maya.

Correct, undead isn't a term used in Mexican myth, but we were talking about the undead, and that has a very distinct meaning.

The only thing's you'll find that Almost fit as a Vampire are Nahuales (living sorcerers/witches) and the ghosts that are really like succubi.

Lets see your ritual: How was the fresh heart obtained? if it comes from murdering someone to get it, it is evil.

Same as we would say about the way China goes about getting organs from the huygurs.

Lets change your spell so it resembles somewhat a vampire: To restitute your health the spell uses fresh blood, so far not inherently evil as long as there's no free will violation/murder involved.

Now lets say the spell makes you need fresh blood constantly and those who "willingly" donate it will end up like you needing "donors".

To put it simply: If the vampire can creat scions, then it's ev il, it's the same as knowingly giving someone AIDS.

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 05:35:53 PM
Vampires feed on blood, but most other undead don't feed like this in traditional myth and fantasy. For example, elder Hamlet's ghost is scary, but he isn't draining the life force of the living to get his revenge. Likewise for other ancestral spirits, revenants, and folk tale figures. Even in D&D, liches - along with ghosts, mummies and many others - aren't portrayed as predatory. They're often evil, but they don't have to kill the living to survive.

The difference is that animals are non-sentient. Sentient undead are predating specifically on other sentients, usually against their will, for more than just nourishment often. Again I stipulate it's not universal - but it's the NORM. At BEST you're skirting evil.

Liches don't have to kill to survive *by the rules* - they kill because they're evil. If you're arguing that is not due to their condition - I'm not convinced since by definition Necromancy deals with doing exactly that. Seems like you're purposing leaving out some very significant details to make a vapid point.

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 05:35:53 PMOutside of D&D, as I said, there are plenty of good-aligned undead, from Osiris to Mexican spirits of the dead to Koschei to Baron Samdi.

Cherry-picked individuals are by definition outliers to the norm. And even Osiris, Koschei and Baron Samedi are less "undead" than being divine representation of the concept of Death within the context of the circle of life, not specifically "undead" as represented in this conversation. From a gaming standpoint - I'm sure they'd have different views, surely, but "good" and "evil" would certainly govern their positions on how they treated "undead" - and that would define them. Osiris is generally Good and his governance over the sphere of Death would probably be very specific on how necromancy would be used.

Mortals are not *capable* of the feats these entities are.

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 05:35:53 PMMuch of European Christian myth tend to portray ghosts and other undead as evil, but there are many pagan and non-European counter-examples. There's also 20th century fantasy going back many decades, long before any modern trends like Twilight. Casper the Friendly Ghost started in 1945, Deadman in 1967, and Blade in 1973.

Again - all exceptions that prove the rule. Your point? Casper was nice. His other ghost-friends were evil assholes.

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 05:35:53 PMWhat specific assumption are you taking here, aside from the supposed predatory requirement? Even some sort of required predatory behavior doesn't strike me as inherently evil. There are predatory races like cat-people that have to eat meat, but they are usually not portrayed as inherently evil.

That with the predatory requirement due to their condition and the very fundamental fuel of their power - that inherent "evil" as a moral necessity seems trivial to the point of you'll find it much more productive to examine "good" exceptions to the rule than trying to piecemeal why undeath is evil.

The moral value judgement of "good" always requires more effort - undeath status or not.

Quote from: tenbones on November 09, 2021, 01:51:32 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 05:35:53 PMMuch of European Christian myth tend to portray ghosts and other undead as evil, but there are many pagan and non-European counter-examples. There's also 20th century fantasy going back many decades, long before any modern trends like Twilight. Casper the Friendly Ghost started in 1945, Deadman in 1967, and Blade in 1973.

Again - all exceptions that prove the rule. Your point? Casper was nice. His other ghost-friends were evil assholes.

My point is that whether good undead are even possible - and how frequent they are - is setting dependent.

Specifically, I'm interested in how people see the evilness of undead because I'm helping develop a D&D setting where undead and necromancy specifically are not associated with evil. They can be evil, just like the living can be evil, but it isn't seen as a core part of what they are. It's an Incan-inspired fantasy setting, called "Land of New Horizons" - where there is a huge empire, and the emperors of the past are wise mummies who still act to help their descendants - and ghosts along with other spirits are often appealed to for advice or aid. In historical Incan tradition, the emperors were considered immortal, and upon physical death, their mummies still were treated as if they were active - and had a palace and servants to attend them.

I haven't done anything with liches yet, but now I'm picturing a lich as a wizard in a tower who is consulted in some adventure.

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 02:39:17 PM"Land of New Horizons" - where there is a huge empire, and the emperors of the past are wise mummies who still act to help their descendants - and ghosts along with other spirits are often appealed to for advice or aid. In historical Incan tradition, the emperors were considered immortal, and upon physical death, their mummies still were treated as if they were active - and had a palace and servants to attend them.

Well if their immortal, why are they not in charge then? Why would a emperor with centuries of experience let some upstart child do anything?

Im not fundementally opposed to 'Good' undead, but if immortality is so common, it kinda takes the punch out of death, and thus the wind out of life.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 09, 2021, 02:46:35 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 02:39:17 PM"Land of New Horizons" - where there is a huge empire, and the emperors of the past are wise mummies who still act to help their descendants - and ghosts along with other spirits are often appealed to for advice or aid. In historical Incan tradition, the emperors were considered immortal, and upon physical death, their mummies still were treated as if they were active - and had a palace and servants to attend them.

Well if their immortal, why are they not in charge then? Why would a emperor with centuries of experience let some upstart child do anything?

Im not fundementally opposed to 'Good' undead, but if immortality is so common, it kinda takes the punch out of death, and thus the wind out of life.

In Tolkien, the Istari and the elves were all immortal. Elrond is over 6000 years old, despite being half-elf. So there are a lot more immortals running around in Middle Earth than in Land of New Horizons. And I don't think the immortality takes the wind out of life in his books. They are special and have a different perspective.

As for the emperors in New Horizons - they rule for a normal human lifetime, including marrying and having descendants. It's a tough job - and after their living body gives out, they retire to instead kibbitz from the sidelines - like Yoda and Kenobi.

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 03:04:25 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 09, 2021, 02:46:35 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 09, 2021, 02:39:17 PM"Land of New Horizons" - where there is a huge empire, and the emperors of the past are wise mummies who still act to help their descendants - and ghosts along with other spirits are often appealed to for advice or aid. In historical Incan tradition, the emperors were considered immortal, and upon physical death, their mummies still were treated as if they were active - and had a palace and servants to attend them.

Well if their immortal, why are they not in charge then? Why would a emperor with centuries of experience let some upstart child do anything?

Im not fundementally opposed to 'Good' undead, but if immortality is so common, it kinda takes the punch out of death, and thus the wind out of life.

In Tolkien, the Istari and the elves were all immortal. Elrond is over 6000 years old, despite being half-elf. So there are a lot more immortals running around in Middle Earth than in Land of New Horizons. And I don't think the immortality takes the wind out of life in his books. They are special and have a different perspective.

As for the emperors in New Horizons - they rule for a normal human lifetime, including marrying and having descendants. It's a tough job - and after their living body gives out, they retire to instead kibbitz from the sidelines - like Yoda and Kenobi.

Incompetent comparison. The Istari and the elves weren't human. Nor was Elrond (not entirely); he embraced his elven lineage.

You honestly think a ruler would be content to rule for a mere human lifetime and then retire, knowing full well he'll be transformed into a tougher form and live theoretically forever? What a load of crap.