So last night my sorcerer and another were conversing IC when the other sorcerer asked if I thought it was ironic that a sorcerer who specializes in necromancy (me) is also a member of Voln. Of course I responded that I didn't find it ironic at all and launched into a speech about the differences between animates and the undead... when flesh golems (undead golems) came up.

I admitted ignorance as to their origins but surmised that, unlike other golems, their method of animation involved trapping a soul inside them and that, since they were created from the flesh of multiple (formerly) living beings, they could not have been animated by the more benign magics used to create traditional golems (thus requiring darker arts).

Now the fact that we (and the tomb troll necromancers that share the same area) can use 730 to animate flesh golems creates a gaping hole in this theory (whoopsie!), so I was wondering if anyone had a better explanation?

Starchitin

A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.

<Do you need to justify your practices to the lesser beings (aka non-sorcerers) around you?>

Not at all, but the conversation was with another sorcerer or the same race and culture.

Starchitin

A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.

Speaking as Heathyr, a Voln witch, I view necromancy as a crude, yet useful practice. I have no ethical misgivings with necromancy, as a whole. To the contrary, I find it solidly practical to recycle dead matter into living form. It almost has a certain noble, selfless quality to it, like the vultures, who consume death and produce life. It is not well understood by the public, however, so like much of sorcery, it is best practiced in secret. But, for me, it is strictly a tool. I give it little regard beyond it's practical uses. My focus, and destiny, lies...elsewhere.

~ Heathyr

<Where are flesh golems in game>

In March Keep, near River's Rest.

<if they're undead thats an error by the GM who made them.>

They are undead, though I doubt it's an error. Poking around the Keep you can find evidence they were intended to be created as more then just automatons and, even if your proposal predated their release in 2008, the GMs weren't required to adhere to your vision when they created them.

Starchitin

A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.

>They are undead, though I doubt it's an error. Poking around the Keep you can find evidence they were intended to be created as more then just automatons and, even if your proposal predated their release in 2008, the GMs weren't required to adhere to your vision when they created them.

Of course they weren't, likewise a GM could create a creature called a vampire and make it a four legged woolly tusked monster with a scorpion tail and say that is what a vampire is in Elanthia.

But, in actuality, there are generally accepted definitions out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem (You'll notice that article links to the Frankenstein article for further reading)

Then even the mother of all RPGs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)

That one explicitly mentioned flesh golems, they're constructs, not undead.

That we have "Soul golems" in Elanthia has always seemed weird to me, but I attribute it to the creature being named after what it resembles, not what it actually is. Sort of how we call a peanuts, cashews, and pecans all nuts, when botanically they're very very different. A soul golem is not a golem, merely some sort of undead soul creation, analogous to a golem, so it gets that label, but not an actual golem, because it doesn't fit the generally accepted definition, the definition that is used consistently elsewhere in the game for all the other golem types (outside of Flesh golems of course)

So ya, in my opinion, whoever made flesh golems made a mistake.

But they're not golems by name.

right... which is different from the classic definition of undead.

A golem is essentially a fantasy robot.

Undead is something that once lived, and died, and was given unholy life, the definition ties heavily into the mysticism of the soul. It can't be made of random body parts unless you're also sticking a soul in there.

You can turn a corpse head into a soccer ball, it doesn't make it an undead ball because you've repurposed a body part for a different use and granted it new life as a different sort of object.

This is such a nerdy argument, its a bit like trying to explain why StarWars is fantasy and Star Trek is science fiction. On face value people think "fantasy = swords, sci-fi = space" just like they think "animated flesh = undead, animated stone = golem" but that isn't always the case. You can't judge these books by their covers.

>My understanding, in the case of undead constructs (golems), is that although the body was assembled in a similar way to other constructs, it differs in that a soul from another being was used in the animation. Why take this extra, notably evil step? To make the construct more self-sufficient, perhaps. Or maybe to imprison and torment the soul. But I don't see any particular difficulty with the concept of an undead golem. It is an entirely different kind of creature internally, but it is still "golemy" on the outside.

I suppose, but going back to the original argument, that isn't what 730 does, so a volnie should have no qualms about it.

I also believe Elanthia specific lore dictates golems to have been created by wizards. I was told as such by a GM one time when I asked for sorcerers to gain the ability to create flesh golems.

>Absolutely agree! Animate Dead 730 has nothing to do with undead. It's strictly mechanical.

So it's not necromancy? And what you're doing has no similarity to what Despana and other necromancers did in the lore? Look at it from a more first-hand point of view. You're doing a ritual and making a corpse follow you around and obey your commands. Is there a distinction from binding the tortured undead to this world? Sure. But to say it has nothing to do with undead is - in my mind - like saying a kitchen knife is totally dissimilar from a weapon. Weapon? What weapon? Oh, this 10 inch Henkel kitchen knife? That's not a weapon. Totally unlike a weapon!

Player of Kilshaar

<<<So it's not necromancy? And what you're doing has no similarity to what Despana and other necromancers did in the lore? Look at it from a more first-hand point of view. You're doing a ritual and making a corpse follow you around and obey your commands. Is there a distinction from binding the tortured undead to this world? Sure. But to say it has nothing to do with undead is - in my mind - like saying a kitchen knife is totally dissimilar from a weapon. Weapon? What weapon? Oh, this 10 inch Henkel kitchen knife? That's not a weapon. Totally unlike a weapon!>>>

I didn't say it wasn't necromancy. Necromancy is magic with dead things. Undead creation involves the soul of a being. There is no soul involved in the Animate Dead spell, it is strictly mechanical (I mean, you know, with magic and stuff). Creating undead, as what Despana did, certainly involves necromancy, but necromancy doesn't necessarily entail "undead."

So to answer your questions: Yes, it's necromancy. No, it's nothing to do with undead.

~ Heathyr and friends

Just a couple comments on the running conversation:

-I like the idea that what critters are commonly called doesn't necessarily line up with their nature, just like what happens in RL. Pandas are commonly called bears because they look like bears even though physiologically they have very little in common with them, why couldn't the same be true of flesh, soul, and bone golems? It's not like most of the population of Elanthia would know enough about their makeup to make the distinction, after all, they can't tell the difference between an animate and the undead either...


-As for as who or what creates undead, while there have been sorcerers that have created undead in Elanthia's past, it's generally understood that these individuals either power and knowledge far beyond what any of our characters are able to attain. A couple of them even seemed to have had at least a couple skills that belong to professions other then sorcerery in addition to their sorcerous talents.

Also, undead creation isn't limited to sorcerery, according to in game references. Various Arkati, spirits, demonic powers, and priests aligned with Lornon are referenced as being the forces behind the creation of undead as well. Given that there isn't any one source behind their creation, why couldn't a mage experimenting with golems have discovered a way to bind souls to their creations for whatever reason?

-Finally, getting back to my original post, whether or not I see a conflict between Necromancy and Voln, that doesn't mean my character does. To him, necromancy involves a range of practices which may or may not involve manipulating souls. As long as he isn't preventing them from receiving Lormenstra's mercy, he's free to practice necromancy to his heart's content.

Wandering slightly off-topic, this is also why he has no problem utilizing SACRIFICE as a member of Voln. He doesn't think he's destroying the soul (whether or not he actually is), he's just drawing a little power off it before sending it on it's way to the Black Gate.

Either way, his membership in Voln isn't the only thing about him that's in conflict with other aspects of his character. Somehow, since rolling him up he's evolved into a Dhe'nari sorcerer that's a member of Voln, has a deep respect for Aeia, gets off on mass slaughter, and has adopted a Sylph as his sister...and doesn't understand where the conflict between any of it is. Maybe Zelia's influenced him a bit?

Starchitin

A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.

I just asked the golem to bust up that chifferobe for me and then he attacked me!

GS meets To Kill a Mockingbird... 0

<<<I just think people equivocate on lore way too much, to the point where it becomes meaningless sometimes. The backstory for Faendryl and Dhe'nar might as well not exist, given the way 98% of them are RP'd. A little orthodoxy helps keep the lore alive, imo.>>>

I agree with this statement. But I don't believe drawing a distinction between necromancy and the undead is equivocating. To the contrary, I think it's reasserting the orthodoxy you mentioned. Necromancy and the undead are related, surely. But the former does not necessarily entail the latter.

This is not to say our characters will necessarily agree with everything we, as players, may understand. Some will, some won't. I think if this were a real-life issue, it might be as controversial as stem-cell research, or abortion. Some people see it one way, others see it another. My Voln sorcerer (and her player) views animation as purely a mechanical thing. The corpse is still dead. It's just a meat puppet, nothing more. This idea is supported by the way PC animation works. When we animate an adventurer, we gain control of the body, but the soul is still entirely independent. For all practical purposes, that person is still dead. Through the careful application of sorcery, we can stimulate the body to respond to our whims, but we have no dominion over the spirit.

This is distinct from undead beings, which are tortured, trapped souls in need of release. Creating undead is an evil practice (at least in the judgment of Liabo), and likely involves some form of Luukosian ritual. There's nothing to suggest our animated puppets are in any way undead. When they're released, there's no "sound like a weeping child". They just collapse in a heap, the magic spent. It can't be undead if there's no spirit to release.

I can understand how a character in the game world may view necromancy as an evil art, associated with the undead. I can also see how a layperson might mistake an animated creature for an undead being. Sorcery is, after all, a widely feared, despised and misunderstood art. And I could even see how a devoted Voln sorcerer, who has never studied or practiced necromancy, might share such misconceptions. So it boils down to how you choose to play your character. My character would find such an attitude somewhat unenlightened, and perhaps irrational, but understandable given his or her ignorance of the topic.

~ Heathyr and friends

I'm very late to this thread, but the subject is something I have investigated in the past. Bone golems are one of the very oldest creatures in the game, and they have always been treated as undead. Crystal golems, on the other hand, were not. I think you have to go back to the roots to see why golems in GemStone were able to be undead. Golems were originally defined (for us) as a sub-class of "artificial being" that were imbued with a captured spirit and made out of a single material:

"Golems are formed of solid substances imbued with a spirit. Many are creatures given life without a complete form and are little more than stupid beasts prematurely endowed with a soul; others are animated sculptures. All appears and act as living statues. They serve only their maker, responding to simple instructions (e.g. one-liners). ... Unlike constructs, golems are composed of a single piece of a particular substance. Mannish in appearance, their features are only as defined as their maker's sculpting skill allows." - Rolemaster Creatures & Treasures I, 1985.

Flesh golems were listed under that category, apparently not undead, whereas bone golems were listed with the undead.

Bone Golem:

"This creature is not put in the artificial beings section because of its special undead nature. It is a statue made completely of bone by a process only a few liches and necromancers know. Then an undead spirit possessed the statue, animating it and giving it [spirit] draining ability. Not as mindless as other golems, it does not need to be commanded to attack the living; it will attack whenever it detects one. Otherwise it should be treated as a normal golem. Liches often use them to guard their fabulous treasures." - Rolemaster Creatures & Treasures II, 1989.

The issue was the kind of spirit that was bound within the golem, so "undead spirits" would make undead golems. There was a later book that had demonic golems, which were golems possessed with a "demonic spirit." Likewise, elemental golems. "Soul golem" is weird. I would say they are undead glaes golems. The vruul were unholy artificial constructs, but far more complex than golems. What makes one imprisoned soul "undead" and another not? In the past the answer would have been corruption with dark energy or "unholy power", which was consistent with the archaic lore of the Dark Gods originating in demonic planes of existence with a more chaotic form of essence. Why would they be associated with undeath now that they are all Arkati? I would guess "unholy" is still rooted in the demonic. But it seems ill-defined.

With the Order of [Voln] we overlook the fact that they were only interested in releasing cursed souls to be cleansed of taint. Most golems lack this inherent malevolence, so they do not count. Animating player characters also would not count. If we were to add a different ritual as an option to 730 that involved capturing a soul in a soulstone, casting Curse at it to corrupt and fuse it to its bound form, then maybe that kind of animate would be considered undead and forbidden by the Order.

Strictly speaking, you should not hear a weeping child when striking them down, because it is the soul itself that is wicked. (I'm not convinced the society was originally intended to be honest about its motives, but its back story has been retconned to fit the modern history. What the monk says is a blatant lie in its original context.)

I think the problem with "necromancy" and "the undead" in Elanthia is that we never really defined unholy power. Without understanding what that is and its relation to sorcery, it is difficult to be sure our sock puppets and necrotic energy are really as innocuous as we say. There are phrases like "evil essence" in the current lore, but I doubt any of us could really say what that actually means. The "Unlife as anti-essence" concept was reintroduced with the Vvrael, so we could restore "anti-mana" as the conceptual underpinning of undeath if we wished. Another possibility, which is not necessarily inconsistent, is making it inherently rooted in hybrid magic.

In DragonRealms "corruption" is based on the unnatural amalgam of different kinds of energy. The most unholy necromancers become so corrupt that holy magic like healing spells stops working on them. What you would have is many varieties of sorcery, some of which are deeper violations of nature than others. Some would only be dangerous in the sense of backlash risk. The darkest forms of sorcery would warp the caster, their soul, and ultimately their sanity. Metaphysical radiation poisoning.

- Xorus' player

---

>Varevice says, "Marlu is a nasty fellow that I believe we'll start learning a lot more about as demonic summoning is implemented...."
>Varevice says, "And hush, it will too be."
>Varevice winks.

<< [Maybe more like this file cabinet is made of steel. Yeah, a katana is also made of steel. Steelmaking is involved in both. That doesn't make the cabinet a weapon.] ... Of course, I'd tell him a steel file cabinet is definitely a weapon. You just have to drop it out the window on someone...>> - DAID

Something else that occurs to me is that we have seemingly drifted too far toward the idea that the undead need to be made by spellcraft. It used to be that only some kinds of undead were made that way, others were "naturally" occurring under specific conditions. Firephantoms came from being burned alive, for example, which is why there are blood stains on the volcano arch on Glatoph. You could be in the undead business without knowing any "make undead" spells.

I think it comes from people misreading that original line about Despana making "the first of the Undead." Undead should be interpreted as a proper noun in that sentence, otherwise you are saying Despana invented undeath by reading a book on how to make the undead. In the bestiaries that existed at the time, her ghouls and rotting corpses would have come from cursed "rot" diseases, her zombies from burial in cursed lands, and banshees from being born deformed in tainted lands.

The story of Aramur Forean notably pre-dates Despana in the history, but it was written by the same GM who designed the Wolves Den.


<<With the Order of [Voln] we overlook the fact that they were only interested in releasing cursed souls to be cleansed of taint.>> - me

I think I should clarify in advance that I mean: "The Order of [Voln] in the sense of what their monastery actually tells you, which was written within the context of obsolete religious lore which was significantly different." For example, they symbolically represent [Lorminstra]'s "Staff of Doom" in the Courtyard, which they neglect to tell you was used to utterly annihilate the souls of the wicked. It was about the corruption of souls back then, not mere imprisonment itself.

These days the Order has multiple conflicting schools of thought, which disagree with each other about the theological nature of their purpose. The "mercy of releasing the enslaved" interpretation was invented in Nydds, which clashed with the traditionalist crusaders (i.e. kill the walking corpses.) Then the Dandrellian interpretation of cleansing evil because of the soul's inherent worth, which spawned the Halluckites who expanded it to include killing those who aid evil.

This was resisted by the Lorminstran traditionalists (Nepsonians) who said it was only about the balance of life and death, and that the "evil" was allowed to exist in Elanthia by Koar's will according to theology. The Halluckites say it is implicit because Koar prohibits Voln from directly waging war on Luukos and company. And so on, and so on. So, basically depending on how they happen to interpret their mandate, some of them might not care 730 does not make "undead."

- Xorus' player