Do zombies jump badly?

[Pale]

High Priest Mikhal, you might be thinking of "Toben the Many", which was a sort of sentient disease in, I think, one of the Fraternity netbooks. I always liked the idea of Toben - I think it has a lot of potential.

I've never read the Guide to the Walking Dead, but it sounds like I ought to try to dig up (hah - unintentional pun) a copy somewhere.

The mechanism you've described sounds a bit like the supposed lore behind the different zombie types in Left 4 Dead, ie, meth-heads became hunters, etc. But I think that it's a good idea that you've got about different corpses and different spells incorporated along with animate dead offering different zombie types.

What do you mean by "deathless" zombies? Zombies that don't stop regardless of the damage caused? They don't drop after 8hp dealt to them, they keep going until disarticulated (like Strahd's zombies)?

I was really taken with the necromancy featured in the Dresden books - in their case, each necromancer needed a "drummer" to provide a beat that would, I think, simulate a heartbeat for the raised dead. One tapped a book against his leg, another put techno on repeat on a car stereo, another had a literal drummer. I'm kind of torn on magic in general, since I prefer to have it very rare and rather powerful - I like to have some element of detail to it, where the components are distinctive. In general, even when not limiting magic, I have always liked the rules that have described specific components that could be added to spells to augment or change them - you'd always find them tucked away in some monster entry that said the monster's horn could be used to boost spell X or their saliva might add another effect to spell Y. I like the opportunity to "personalize" your casting in that way. But that's a whole other topic, and almost bends itself around more toward alchemy than raw magic.

[HuManBing]

I also seem to recall a specific virus-transmitted zombie plague in 2e. It's not Toben or any other unique form of undead.

Also, "deathless" is a template or something similar derived from Book of Exalted Deeds - one of the very few 3.5 ed supplement books I never ended up getting. It's basically a system band-aid to allow a person to become undead but not evil.

[Sareau]

"Deathless" is a template from Eberron-basically good undead, justifying the bizarre ancestor worship of Eberron's elves.

[brass]

Also, "deathless" is a template or something similar derived from Book of Exalted Deeds - one of the very few 3.5 ed supplement books I never ended up getting. It's basically a system band-aid to allow a person to become undead but not evil.

Deathless was an undead based on positive energy. Still kind of creepy.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

I also seem to recall a specific virus-transmitted zombie plague in 2e. It's not Toben or any other unique form of undead.

are you thinking perhaps of one of the viruses created by Phagius?

FYI, Pale, Toben is from VRGttWD, not a netbook.

[HuManBing]

"Deathless" is a template from Eberron-basically good undead, justifying the bizarre ancestor worship of Eberron's elves.

Interesting, so they incorporated it into Eberron too? I can see how that might be a cultural trope similar to Chinese or Roman ancestor worship... something like saying "your ancestors are still around and can still affect the world around you, so it's wise to give them their due respect" but without saying "they're an unholy undead monster bent on eating your brains".

[Pale]

FYI, Pale, Toben is from VRGttWD, not a netbook.

Aw, well, the Fraternity can take my confusion as a compliment then!

And, apparently, I have read that book. And forgotten. Either that, or I'm channeling arcane knowledge out of the ephemera. Both have their virtues.

Can anyone refresh me on the intrinsic differences between positive and negative undead? I always knew that mummies were on the positive end (though it's easier to correlate them with "bright" iconography, given their ties to stereotyped Ancient Egypt), and the more incorporeal, hungry, draining undead (Shadows, Specters, etc) had strong ties to the negative plane. But are there specific traits that all positive or negative possess? Sorry if I'm getting far afield from the zombie talk - if you'd rather see a new thread, that's fine.

Back on whether zombies can jump, it seems that there's been a few broad categories narrowed down (at least, by me) - infected and dead, infected and sublimated, and reanimated. Can anyone tell me if there are similar categories from the Guide? There's also those roused by desecration, but I'm inclined to throw their lot in with the reanimated or call them something other than "zombie".


"Deathless" also sounds a lot like the Harrowed from Deadlands (yay for secret agent zombie Lincoln!). I'd never really considered them on the "zombie" model given their personality - especially their... manitou? If I remember right, that's their "dark passenger" (to borrow a phrase from Dexter) that takes over and causes chaos if the Harrowed isn't up to unlife. They seemed a lot more like the Wraiths from WWOD.

[HuManBing]

Can anyone refresh me on the intrinsic differences between positive and negative undead? I always knew that mummies were on the positive end (though it's easier to correlate them with "bright" iconography, given their ties to stereotyped Ancient Egypt), and the more incorporeal, hungry, draining undead (Shadows, Specters, etc) had strong ties to the negative plane. But are there specific traits that all positive or negative possess? Sorry if I'm getting far afield from the zombie talk - if you'd rather see a new thread, that's fine.

I've heard that this was actually an early-edition misprint. Mummies were misprinted as rising from positive planar energy, instead of negative planar energy. To try to hide their chagrin at this, later editions tried to rationalize it away - with dubious success. It's even present in the Requiem boxed set for Ravenloft 2nd ed., where Il Aluk's negative energy explosion had a bow shock of positive energy preceding it which allegedly created all the mummies.

I think as of 3rd ed. they've basically said negative planar energy is responsible for mummies the same way it is for most other undead.

If I recall correctly there never was any overarching pseudoscientific rationale behind how mummies were inherently any different from any other undead. It stayed that way for as long as it did through simple design inertia.

[Pale]

Gah, the things you pick up and remember....

Thanks, HuManBing, I appreciate the exposition. I kind of like the idea of positive-energy undead, and I think that the whole notion would be worth a bit deeper discussion. I suppose I've viewed mummies as "different" given their strong religious backgrounds, ritual, ties to traditionally sun-flush cultures, and long sleep-periods. Almost like negative energy operated off hunger - a deficit - and positive had a charge that was depleted by action, retained by their trappings and treasures, and replenished by worship. It's not an exact characterization or even a whisper of a sustainable or defendable theory, but, eh, the idea might be worth a turn. Not that I'd look to use positive or negative as anything beyond broad-stroke signifiers for the creature. I'm not really interested in actually invoking the planar systems. Just musing.

Like so much that I spill out here, it's little more than idle chatter.

[Sareau]

Mummy Rot was caused by their positive planar energy-the overabundance of life energy available to the bacteria made them especially virulent. Negative energy undead drained levels. The mummy ability of rejuvenation after being reduced to zero hit points is also grounded in the Positive Planar Energies inherent to mummy status.

I don't personally recall any reversal on the Positive Energy/Negative Energy thing as regards mummies, but I pretty much sat out 2e and went to other systems until 3 won me back.

[Nathan of the FoS]

I've always like the idea of positive energy being able to create undead, more or less by analogy to radiation. (Nuclear bomb creates zombies!) I seem to recall the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual offering the rationale that mummies were created by an unwholesome connection to the positive energy they had used in life as clerics, but I would have to dig out my 2e books at my parents' house to be sure. (If anyone out there does have the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual around, I believe what I'm remembering can be found under "Mummy, Greater"--a Ravenloft import.)

[Strahdsbuddy]

I think the idea of positive-energy undead (or un-dying) has a lot of merit. Nathan mentioned radiation, which could be modeled by the "ghouls" of the Fallout video games. If a negative energy undead is animation without life, the positive variety could be individuals who are kept going long after their allotted time should be up. Using Fallout as an example, the ghouls were regular humans who were alive when the bombs were dropped, i believe over 200 years before the timeframe of the games' setting. They have their memories intact, but their bodies are withering around them. Their existence is perhaps more terrifying as they are still living beings. There is also the risk of the body out-lasting the mind, resulting in the feral ghouls common in the ruined subway tunnels. At this point they would be indistingushable from negative energy ghouls, and this could be dangerous to hunters if the two types have different weaknesses.