Clerics controling undead?

[aldarron]

Here's a bit of a puzzle I suppose must have been discussed before but I haven't found much:

There's this well known quote from Monsters and Treasure (p9.:
"Skeletons and Zombies act only under the instructions
of their motivator, be it a Magic-User or Cleric (Chaos)."

Okay, so a Magic user has the "animate dead" spell, but how do Chaotic clerics gain control of zombies and skeletons? As far as I know, there isn't anything about it in the 3lbbs. (maybe in the supplements?)

I suppose I can see three ways:

1) Evil Clerics can control undead they encounter just as good clerics can turn them (an interpretation I believe, that is used elswhere).

2) The reverse of a Raise Dead spell for evil clerics is basically an animate undead spell.

3) Clerics can create and control undead through the use of special clerical artifacts (like a cauldron, for ex.)

Would like to know what you think or whether there are other ideas/rulings on this.

[coffee]

I like options 1 and 3 that you list. I could easily see a book or something that would allow creation/control of undead; sort of like the Manual of Golems.

The problem with #2 is that Raise Dead when reversed becomes the Finger of Death (M&M, p. 34).

[Mushgnome]

I've always used #1 in my campaigns. It is the simplest solution because it makes use of the existing turn undead table.

Lawful clerics cannot force undead into servitude (their religion forbids it) so they are limited to "turning" commands such as "Halt!" "Release him!" or "Leave this place!"

Chaotic clerics have no such restriction; on a successful turning check, mindless zombies and skeletons obey simple commands (to the "death" on a result of "D"), while intelligent undead grant a single favor in service of the cleric's deity.

Now your idea #3 is really intriguing. A cauldron (or other item) that binds undead to your service would make a great plot hook. Lawful PCs participating in the ritual must save or be tainted and forced to atone...

[leon]

Option 1. Option 3 is like the Black Cauldron, right?

[James Maliszewski]

One of the things I've noticed is that the LBBs (and Supplements) occasionally make references to things that are to be found nowhere in their texts. We know that, in AD&D, evil clerics gained the ability both to command the undead and to cast a version of the animate dead spell. It's also becoming increasingly clear that the roots of what would become AD&D are likely deeper than previously believed, owing to long-standing house rules from the Lake Geneva campaign. So, I think it's possible -- though far from certain -- that those references in the LBBs reflect practices in the Greyhawk game that were never codified until AD&D and slipped into the text without explanation.

[aldarron]

Nov 20, 2010 7:23:56 GMT -6 leon said:

Option 1. Option 3 is like the Black Cauldron, right?

Was thinking of that yeah, but it could be anything really, a gem, a scroll, a ritual performed in a secret chamber in the temple. <shrug>

[aldarron]

Nov 20, 2010 8:17:49 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

One of the things I've noticed is that the LBBs (and Supplements) occasionally make references to things that are to be found nowhere in their texts. We know that, in AD&D, evil clerics gained the ability both to command the undead and to cast a version of the animate dead spell. It's also becoming increasingly clear that the roots of what would become AD&D are likely deeper than previously believed, owing to long-standing house rules from the Lake Geneva campaign. So, I think it's possible -- though far from certain -- that those references in the LBBs reflect practices in the Greyhawk game that were never codified until AD&D and slipped into the text without explanation.

Heartily agreed James. Perhaps some of that obsfucation of AD&D's roots was due to the efforts to cast it as a different/new game.

So, as opposed to the three possibilities I raised, are you suggesting that the quote in the OP can or should be interpreted to mean that the OD&D cleric should get the animate dead spell? That might be the more conservative solution. I dunno.

[coffee]

There's nothing to say an enterprising evil Cleric (sorry, Anti-Cleric) couldn't research such a spell...

[James Maliszewski]

Nov 20, 2010 17:16:26 GMT -6 aldarron said:

So, as opposed to the three possibilities I raised, are you suggesting that the quote in the OP can or should be interpreted to mean that the OD&D cleric should get the animate dead spell? That might be the more conservative solution. I dunno.

That'd be the simplest solution, yes, though my point was only that it's possible that stray quotes like that reflect ideas/material that was used in the early campaigns that didn't make it into the printed text for whatever reason.

It's also a possible instance where the original inspirations for something (in this case evil priests controlling undead) was overshadowed/contradicted elsewhere as a different but related idea was codified into the rules. What I mean is this: the cleric class isn't a "priest" class, even though it was sometimes shoehorned into serving that purpose. Consequently, some references to "clerics" are, in my opinion, shorthand for R.E. Howard-style evil priests leading demonic cults. The term "cleric" is used because it's the closest approximation to this, even when it's actually not that close at all.

That probably doesn't make as much sense in writing as it does in my head, but I hope I'm getting my point across, if only vaguely.

[kenmeister]

When writing Caverns of Thracia, Paul Jaquays noticed this discrepancy as well and specifically gave the evil priests of the Death Cult the ability to use turn undead to control them.

[aldarron]

Been pondering this a bit more and last night a sudden realization hit.

The idea that Chaotic Clerics can get control of undead, instead of turning them seems to be sensible, but its out of character with the rules as written and certainly as intended. "Turn Undead" is Peter Cushing scaring off Dracula with a cross. Its the forces of life (whether lawful or Chaotic) saying "abomination begone" to unlife.

So I just can't support the Turn = controling interpretation. But there is another fact wrapped up in the idea of life vs unlife - Skeleton and zombie monsters made by animate dead are automatons thus they are not "undead". The animate dead spell just causes the bones and rotting bodies to move as instructed and there is no "unlife" in them. The spell is essentialy an animate "form" spell and ought to work just s well on a wooden puppet or whatever as a pile of disjointed bones. This is why later D&D allows dispel magic to destroy skeletons and zombies.

There's a follow on to this logic though. If animated skeletons and zombies are just magically animated objects, then there is no reason a Cleric could turn them! They have no unlife within and thus are not subject to being turned!

But wait! Skeletons and Zombies are clearly on the Turn Undead table!

Well, here is the kicker. The turn undead table is for turning UNDEAD. So there must be undead skeltons and zombies in addition to but seperate from the more common animated type!

This isn't so heretical an interpretation as it might seem at first blush. Even as early as Supplement II we get skeletons and zombies that have more HD or HP than they are supposed to have. I'd say there is a long tradition of "beefed up" versions of both these monsters. Perhaps some of the undead created during the animate dead spell become possesed with unlife or perhaps it happens some other way. In any case I would see the undead version of skeletons and zombies to be self motivated (like the coffer skeleton in Holmes sample Dungeon) and not under thecontrol of an MU.

That still leaves open the question of how Clerics might gain control of undead but I'm leaning towards James idea that they should get the Animate Dead spell.

[leon]

Nov 23, 2010 10:27:36 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Skeleton and zombie monsters made by animate dead are automatons thus they are not "undead". The animate dead spell just causes the bones and rotting bodies to move as instructed and there is no "unlife" in them. The spell is essentialy an animate "form" spell and ought to work just s well on a wooden puppet or whatever as a pile of disjointed bones. This is why later D&D allows dispel magic to destroy skeletons and zombies.

There's a follow on to this logic though. If animated skeletons and zombies are just magically animated objects, then there is no reason a Cleric could turn them! They have no unlife within and thus are not subject to being turned!

But wait! Skeletons and Zombies are clearly on the Turn Undead table!

Well, here is the kicker. The turn undead table is for turning UNDEAD. So there must be undead skeltons and zombies in addition to but seperate from the more common animated type!

I can't say that I agree with that interpretation of Animate Dead. If it were so, that spell wouldn't exist and it would be covered by Animate Object. The caster breaths the power of unlife to the corpse (from the negative plane as it was later determined), so its a 100% normal undead. Its intelligence (or lack of) has nothing to do with it; most lifeforms on this planet have no intelligence either, it's not a determination of life. Equally it's not a determination of unlife.

[aldarron]

Nov 25, 2010 18:04:57 GMT -6 leon said:

I can't say that I agree with that interpretation of Animate Dead. If it were so, that spell wouldn't exist and it would be covered by Animate Object.

Except that "animate dead" comes first. Animate object is introduced later in Greyhawk, otherwise I would agree with you. As it is though, animate object seems a bit redundant. A dead body is an object, is it not? The one thing that might be a unique feature of Animate Dead would be that it simultaneaously articulates the bones/bodyparts that would otherwise not hold together as a single "object"

Nov 25, 2010 18:04:57 GMT -6 leon said:

The caster breaths the power of unlife to the corpse (from the negative plane as it was later determined), so its a 100% normal undead. Its intelligence (or lack of) has nothing to do with it; most lifeforms on this planet have no intelligence either, it's not a determination of life. Equally it's not a determination of unlife.

That's a cool explanation, but that kinda overcomplicates the nature of the spell in giving it essentially two seperate abilities 1)imbuing with unlife and 2) animating it.

Simply having the essence of unlife in something doesn't (I think) give it the ability to move or to understand/obey commands. Just, for example as being imbued with life doesn't give a tree the ability to move or understand directions.

The simulacrum spell in Greyhawk is a similar situation. One spell creates the simulacrum, but for it to move or obey commands an animate spell must be cast on it.

[leon]

Semantics aside (no matter how we rationalize animate dead it works the same way anyway) giving animate dead to evil clerics is not a bad idea. They can still have the "control undead" special ability as well, of course. The two powers are not mutually exclusive.