Why zombie livestock is a bad idea


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

kestral287 wrote:
It's also probably not fair to say that you have no costs-- you need somewhere to store any skeletons that aren't working (as leaving them to wander around is likely to get them destroyed by murderhobos, not to mention probably unpopular with the townsfolk).

Would they be tipped over, by skeletal fratboys?


This is why i would use a troupe of unseen servants cast with two applications of the reach metamagic feat. I would give them invisible bags of holdings, tell them to through the town and place any coin they find in the bags.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Given that he likely only needs to have his ox for about a week, once per year, this is likely easily affordable for him if he manages his money at all well.

That makes it sound like you won't be doing much business, because they'll only need i once a year for plowing, but you can also rent your skeleton Oxen (I go with skeleton since they're cleaner and more likely to be rented) for drawing carriages and other such things as well.

Actually, that may be true for that one farmer, with that particular crop.

But other farmers in the area may need to plow and sow at different times of the year, dependent on the nature of the crops they specialise in.
So the ox could easily be rented out several times per year, once to Colin the Carrots, once to Terry the Turnips, once to Wally the Wheat...

Pulling a carriage may be a stretch, unless the renters have a rather gothic sense of humour, but you could hitch it to a mill wheel or treadmill to draw irrigation water.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

No-one here seems to suggest that no supervision is needed, just that it is MORE efficient than, for example, plowing a field yourself. One supervisor can supervise 10-15 fields being Undeadified and plowed, compared to needing 10-15 people at the minimum.

Also, the reason you can't leave low-wage workers unsupervised is because they are human. They get bored, have low motivation because the wage is soul-suckingly low and they'd rather be doing something else. These Undead never get bored, have 100% motivation because they HAVE no soul to be sucked dry. The best thing they know is doing what they were just told to do. Whatever it is. Always. And forever.

Scarab Sages

Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think teamster work would probably be a much better field than farming, really. It would certainly make the most of their ability to cover large distances faster than living animals.

And through inhospitable terrain.

Delivering aid to a drought- or disease-ridden region.

Think how much more actual trade goods you could deliver per journey, if your baggage space weren't taken up by animal feed and clean water.


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:


in other words. automated assembly lines outright kill economies and breed lazyness because they outright kill jobs.

A quick google of 100 year US/UK unemployment rates and unemployment by service (post-extraction goods creation, such as car making etc) contribution to GDP ranking tells me that this is is a complete fabrication. Unemployment rates rise and fall back into the 19th century, with no obvious change at the beginning of the 20th century and the introduction of the assembly line in ~1915. Similarly, high service contribution to GDP (which correlates to high industrialisation and modernisation) correlates negatively to unemployment, not positively. Countries with a higher reliance agriculture for their GDP, such as india, have much higher unemployment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would rather use undead to power mills, pumps or other simple but hard labor stuff.
And I could see a zombie powered mill much easier to maintenance than a water- or windmill.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Shifty wrote:
On a side note I still think its funny that a mindless undead with NO INTELLIGENCE has a +0 mod, whilst someone with an actual Into score of 8 has a -1 modifier. Seems odd that 'no brain > half of one'.

Not being able to think for yourself means not being able to come up with really stupid ideas or make stupid choices.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Some days I would be estatic if I was confident that everyone I work with had a +0 mod.

Liberty's Edge

Snorter wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think teamster work would probably be a much better field than farming, really. It would certainly make the most of their ability to cover large distances faster than living animals.

And through inhospitable terrain.

Delivering aid to a drought- or disease-ridden region.

Think how much more actual trade goods you could deliver per journey, if your baggage space weren't taken up by animal feed and clean water.

It's worth noting that, for things like this, Constructs work just as well, and without the risks. Though they're admittedly a little pricier, though.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Snorter wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think teamster work would probably be a much better field than farming, really. It would certainly make the most of their ability to cover large distances faster than living animals.

And through inhospitable terrain.

Delivering aid to a drought- or disease-ridden region.

Think how much more actual trade goods you could deliver per journey, if your baggage space weren't taken up by animal feed and clean water.

It's worth noting that, for things like this, Constructs work just as well, and without the risks.

Constructs are prohibitively expensive.

Liberty's Edge

Blakmane wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Snorter wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think teamster work would probably be a much better field than farming, really. It would certainly make the most of their ability to cover large distances faster than living animals.

And through inhospitable terrain.

Delivering aid to a drought- or disease-ridden region.

Think how much more actual trade goods you could deliver per journey, if your baggage space weren't taken up by animal feed and clean water.

It's worth noting that, for things like this, Constructs work just as well, and without the risks.
Constructs are prohibitively expensive.

Eh, not for work like that. They can be used for stuff like this basically indefinitely. Still initially pricey, but not prohibitively so if you use them consistently for decades.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather risk a pair of 90gp skeletal ox, than a construct costing 1000s of gold, if I'm going to send goods across a desert.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Ashiel, thank you for finding the reference about mindless and Int mods. I missed that.

My point about supervision was made because someone claimed in the previous thread that the undead could work 24 hours straight, and I was simply claiming that they are not smart enough for effective work with no supervision, so they can only work 24 hours straight if you have overseers doing the same.

I still think zombies would be a very bad plan, but I can now see a potential use for skeletons. They still have disadvantages - the creator is limited in how many they can have going at once without some being uncontrolled, there is still a risk of them attacking the farmer's livestock/kids.

Actually it seems just plausible enough to make a good adventure hook when things go awry.

By the way, there is an AP where the local insects carry disease from undead. In this case it's ghouls but the PCs can catch ghoul fever just by being bit my mosquitoes.


Some more points I didn't type up because I was on my phone and it was late*:

Not to be insulting, but a lot of posts here imply posters don't know how farming (especially amish-tech farming) works. The ox PULLS the plow, but it takes a human guiding the animal in a straight line and another human in back keeping the plow properly aligned and steered in a straight line. You can replace those laborers with undead, I suppose, but that's more HD to put in your bucket.

The argument about the relative intelligence of mindless undead is not at all settled and unless someone has a source they'd care to cite (I freely admit I haven't read or even owned all the biblios necrosis lexicanum regarding Pathfinder or D&D) to my knowledge it falls mostly under DM fiat. You can choose to be VERY permissive in exactly how much a Plod (mindless undead) can be "programmed" to do, but you can never bank on anyone else making the same DM's call.

Personally, my headspace is such that mindless means mindless, simple instructions, few else/if statements, and a sizable chance of breakdown (revert to "kill everything in sight besides master/designated controllers" mode) if left unattended. I think in programming terms a lot with the idea is that the Plod Operating System is a buggy, confused jumble of only mostly-understood common-language command words. The POS* and the senses/sensibilities of Plods are such that MOST of their jobs are limited to being an "engine" under direct supervision of a driver. They can't tell the difference between a good peach and a bad one, or the proper mix of gentle/forceful to pick one and put it in a bucket without bruising/half-pulping it, but they can pick up and carry a 50-pound box of them from the base of the tree to wherever that box needs to go (usually a wagon or a barn).

They can also work in cold. Take some brown mold, stick it in a sealed container, use it to chill the storage cellar and have undead place/retrieve everything you preserve there.

But likewise, the concept of "pollution" is well within the realm of a DM's decisions and common within fiction. The ground trod by the damned and diseased undead becomes cursed with evil, turning crops to ash, plants to poison, and causing the growth of toxic toadstools and other foul things.

So anyway, if someone wants ot turn to plod labor as a brand of "Extreme Recycling" it has its own give-and-take, and it's all well outside the established rules.

Also, it's low-percentage. A skeletal ox has to be as cheap or cheaper than a regular ox (creepiness factor costs you), and while that adds up over time, how much time does an adventurer HAVE before the next Dark Lord arises or world-threatening monster awakens? It'll won't be "nothing" but it probably won't be "lots" either. Just a decent side-business. Like using Fabricate and Wall of Stone/Iron to build things.

Snorter wrote:
I'd rather risk a pair of 90gp skeletal ox, than a construct costing 1000s of gold, if I'm going to send goods across a desert.

Depends on other factors as well. Corpse-raising is evil (like, it produces evil radiation) and can start fights. Plods have places where they're destroyed on sight. Also Constructs can be modified to any shape or form you want. Skeletons and zombies can't always swim or burrow or fly. A good construct flier can have multiple movement types and deliver across multiple locations. Undead are cheaper, no mistake, but constructs can be more dependable and versatile in the right situations. They're also more stylish.

*I swear this joke was accidental, at least at first.

Scarab Sages

Regarding the locals being afraid of the skeletal livestock:

I don't see that as a given, if they are cleaned up, they can be given a coat of gaily coloured paint, and look rather jolly.

See the Mexican 'Día de Muertos' for examples.


Snorter wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
It's also probably not fair to say that you have no costs-- you need somewhere to store any skeletons that aren't working (as leaving them to wander around is likely to get them destroyed by murderhobos, not to mention probably unpopular with the townsfolk).
Would they be tipped over, by skeletal fratboys?

Have you MET fratboys? If you're anywhere near the Golarian equivalent, the good ol' Humanoid fratboys will be going Skeletipping.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
D20pfsrd wrote:
The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely. No matter how many times you use this spell, however, you can control only 4 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level. If you exceed this number, all the newly created creatures fall under your control, and any excess undead from previous castings become uncontrolled. You choose which creatures are released. Undead you control through the Command Undead feat do not count toward this limit.

Wouldn't this sort of limit the ability of a necromancer to hire out undead as laborers? I can't imagine mid to high level necromancers really bothering for the most part, and low level ones might have difficulty being able to make enough that that they can make enough that would be worth their training

There are also benefits to using, you know, live oxen. Farmer can breed more, use them whenever they want, use their poop for fertilizer and their grazing to control unwanted weeds, and finally eat them when they get to old.

The necromancer idea seems pretty similar to issues currently in agriculture with GMO crops. Basically you are allowing a third party to gain a monopoly over a key product (labor) you need to make ends meet, which would only worsen as the more undead oxen that are used, the less living oxen are needed, driving the price of the latter up.

Eventually I think you would just end up in some sort of feudal share-cropping system, where the peasantry is permanently in-debt and under the control of a necromantic aristocracy. As a setting element that is great of course, but also provides a pretty good reason why its not widespread and hasn't replaced normal use of oxen/human labor.


Snorter wrote:

Regarding the locals being afraid of the skeletal livestock:

I don't see that as a given, if they are cleaned up, they can be given a coat of gaily coloured paint, and look rather jolly.

See the Mexican 'Día de Muertos' for examples.

Potentially. Low probability, and dependent on world-building decisions left up to the GM.

But Skeletal Oxen are also boring. Half the fun of the recycler/utilitarian necromancer is going on safari for a rare critter with useful (and tranferrable) abilities like the ability to burrow through solid stone, incredible strength for pulling an entire cultivation rig or harvester, or something similar. A decent Climb speed makes for a good cliffside elevator or multi-story tram. I don't think I need to detail the exploits of the pirate ship that was powered by an undead dire crocodile.

What critter might you use that would be stronger than an undead ox?

Liberty's Edge

MMCJawa wrote:
Eventually I think you would just end up in some sort of feudal share-cropping system, where the peasantry is permanently in-debt and under the control of a necromantic aristocracy. As a setting element that is great of course, but also provides a pretty good reason why its not widespread and hasn't replaced normal use of oxen/human labor.

Amusingly, this isn't a bad description of Geb, though they go more for plantations farmed entirely by undead under an overseer of some sort.

Still, amusingly close to an existing Golarion world element.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would allow it, but they would require supervision to plow the field, and they would need to be supervised by someone capable of handling undead, such as a necromancer or cleric. The farmer would just end up getting eaten or plowing several miles in a meandering line until the oxen either got stuck or decided to eat the farmer and then go ransacking nearby homes for delicious flesh while still hooked up to the plow.

What I wouldn't tell the player up front, unless he made a knowledge check, is all the contamination being spread in the fields by small bits of rotting flesh and necrotic energy that will likely become a blight on the community come harvest time, maybe not the first or second years, but a creeping gloom that slowly sets in. Having undead stomping all over the fields you grow your food in may be economically viable, but there are always unintended consequences.

So no, you don't need to feed them, but you will eventually discover that there are some costs (and adventure opportunities) to cleaning up the pollution they sprinkle all over the soil.

EDIT: Zombie oxen are a walking biohazard. These things are going to contract every disease they even have passing contact with, and dead things attract all kinds of scavengers that function as carriers for disease. You'll need to account for these additional problems.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Detoxifier wrote:

I would allow it, but they would require supervision to plow the field, and they would need to be supervised by someone capable of handling undead, such as a necromancer or cleric. The farmer would just end up getting eaten or plowing several miles in a meandering line until the oxen either got stuck or decided to eat the farmer and then go ransacking nearby homes for delicious flesh while still hooked up to the plow.

What I wouldn't tell the player up front, unless he made a knowledge check, is all the contamination being spread in the fields by small bits of rotting flesh and necrotic energy that will likely become a blight on the community come harvest time, maybe not the first or second years, but a creeping gloom that slowly sets in. Having undead stomping all over the fields you grow your food in may be economically viable, but there are always unintended consequences.

So no, you don't need to feed them, but you will eventually discover that there are some costs (and adventure opportunities) to cleaning up the pollution they sprinkle all over the soil.

EDIT: Zombie oxen are a walking biohazard. These things are going to contract every disease they even have passing contact with, and dead things attract all kinds of scavengers that function as carriers for disease. You'll need to account for these additional problems.

Those are some nice houserules that are not in any of the spell descriptions or bestiary entries. It's really cool how you s$+@ on an idea just because it's an [evil] spell.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Detoxifier wrote:

I would allow it, but they would require supervision to plow the field, and they would need to be supervised by someone capable of handling undead, such as a necromancer or cleric. The farmer would just end up getting eaten or plowing several miles in a meandering line until the oxen either got stuck or decided to eat the farmer and then go ransacking nearby homes for delicious flesh while still hooked up to the plow.

What I wouldn't tell the player up front, unless he made a knowledge check, is all the contamination being spread in the fields by small bits of rotting flesh and necrotic energy that will likely become a blight on the community come harvest time, maybe not the first or second years, but a creeping gloom that slowly sets in. Having undead stomping all over the fields you grow your food in may be economically viable, but there are always unintended consequences.

So no, you don't need to feed them, but you will eventually discover that there are some costs (and adventure opportunities) to cleaning up the pollution they sprinkle all over the soil.

EDIT: Zombie oxen are a walking biohazard. These things are going to contract every disease they even have passing contact with, and dead things attract all kinds of scavengers that function as carriers for disease. You'll need to account for these additional problems.

Those are some nice houserules that are not in any of the spell descriptions or bestiary entries. It's really cool how you s&~# on an idea just because it's an [evil] spell.

S***ing on the idea would be disallowing it. Incorporating it into the campaign and running with the players idea is hardly s***ing on it. Also there is plenty of precedent for this kind of houseruling. The book of vile darkness is one example. Good judgement would also be required, I know my players well enough to know they would enjoy this kind of suprise, that may be different for your group, in which case either consult them with the idea or dismiss it, your choice, no need to get upset.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not talking about how it would be handled in my game. I'm saying you're making up rules that don't exist just so that a plan that relies on safe and effective undead minions cannot function without 'adventure' (read: failure). It wouldn't be so aggravating if I didn't think you'd let Golems work without any sort of problem despite the fact that they're made by enslaving the very essence of an elemental and bonding it to a construct.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
I'm not talking about how it would be handled in my game. I'm saying you're making up rules that don't exist just so that a plan that relies on safe and effective undead minions cannot function without 'adventure' (read: failure). It wouldn't be so aggravating if I didn't think you'd let Golems work without any sort of problem despite the fact that they're made by enslaving the very essence of an elemental and bonding it to a construct.

Hey if you don't want your actions as a character to have any impact on the world you play in thats fine, you are welcome to continue rules lawyering at the expense of having fun. If you don't like my ideas, feel free to ignore them and don't incorporate them, if you do, steal at will.

I would always suggest discussing concepts with players before inserting them into a game, my players and I have a working relationship and we've already discussed this kind of flavoring in the past and they were unanimously in favor of it.

Its not about screwing the necromancer out of his profits, its about presenting challenges and seeing how he and the party resolves them, its not to say it isn't a viable idea, but I've never had a player excited by the fact that I simply handwavingly approved his idea with no further discussion or in game elements. That might be different from your experience and thats fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Detoxifier wrote:

I would allow it, but they would require supervision to plow the field, and they would need to be supervised by someone capable of handling undead, such as a necromancer or cleric. The farmer would just end up getting eaten or plowing several miles in a meandering line until the oxen either got stuck or decided to eat the farmer and then go ransacking nearby homes for delicious flesh while still hooked up to the plow.

What I wouldn't tell the player up front, unless he made a knowledge check, is all the contamination being spread in the fields by small bits of rotting flesh and necrotic energy that will likely become a blight on the community come harvest time, maybe not the first or second years, but a creeping gloom that slowly sets in. Having undead stomping all over the fields you grow your food in may be economically viable, but there are always unintended consequences.

So no, you don't need to feed them, but you will eventually discover that there are some costs (and adventure opportunities) to cleaning up the pollution they sprinkle all over the soil.

EDIT: Zombie oxen are a walking biohazard. These things are going to contract every disease they even have passing contact with, and dead things attract all kinds of scavengers that function as carriers for disease. You'll need to account for these additional problems.

Two questions then:

1. How much time do I have to spend training a twelve year old kid to manage my undead animals?

2. Do you include the part about being a walking biohazard when I do the far more intelligent thing and animate them as skeletons instead?


kestral287 wrote:
Detoxifier wrote:

I would allow it, but they would require supervision to plow the field, and they would need to be supervised by someone capable of handling undead, such as a necromancer or cleric. The farmer would just end up getting eaten or plowing several miles in a meandering line until the oxen either got stuck or decided to eat the farmer and then go ransacking nearby homes for delicious flesh while still hooked up to the plow.

What I wouldn't tell the player up front, unless he made a knowledge check, is all the contamination being spread in the fields by small bits of rotting flesh and necrotic energy that will likely become a blight on the community come harvest time, maybe not the first or second years, but a creeping gloom that slowly sets in. Having undead stomping all over the fields you grow your food in may be economically viable, but there are always unintended consequences.

So no, you don't need to feed them, but you will eventually discover that there are some costs (and adventure opportunities) to cleaning up the pollution they sprinkle all over the soil.

EDIT: Zombie oxen are a walking biohazard. These things are going to contract every disease they even have passing contact with, and dead things attract all kinds of scavengers that function as carriers for disease. You'll need to account for these additional problems.

Two questions then:

1. How much time do I have to spend training a twelve year old kid to manage my undead animals?

2. Do you include the part about being a walking biohazard when I do the far more intelligent thing and animate them as skeletons instead?

1. We would work that out together. What would you think is fair?

2. Nope.


Effectively if the GM wants it to work in his game, it'll work in his game. The real problem is that if it works, it's likely already being done. The PC that wants to do this isn't going to be the first to think of it (or any of the other vaguely similar hacks caused by applying rules meant for exciting adventuring to the non-adventuring economy.)

Either it isn't going to work, for practical reasons or legal ones, or someone is already doing it.

On another front, there's no RAW reason for the farmer to buy into your scheme. Regardless of whether he uses live oxen or rents dead ones, his income from his farm is still based strictly on his Profession(farming) roll. Expenses, such as cost of oxen, are incidental and not directly tracked.


thejeff wrote:

Effectively if the GM wants it to work in his game, it'll work in his game. The real problem is that if it works, it's likely already being done. The PC that wants to do this isn't going to be the first to think of it (or any of the other vaguely similar hacks caused by applying rules meant for exciting adventuring to the non-adventuring economy.)

Either it isn't going to work, for practical reasons or legal ones, or someone is already doing it.

On another front, there's no RAW reason for the farmer to buy into your scheme. Regardless of whether he uses live oxen or rents dead ones, his income from his farm is still based strictly on his Profession(farming) roll. Expenses, such as cost of oxen, are incidental and not directly tracked.

I see no reason to rain on the players parade by saying he isn't the first person to think of it.


Ashiel wrote:

Seriously, again, sans having a will of their own, common mindless undead are as mentally functional as human beings. *headdesk*

That's why they are good sentries, tomb guardians, laborers, and a general *****-minion to badguys who just need some dudes. They are functionally similar to highly advanced AI robots. They have no will of their own but are capable of solving basic problems.
{. . .}

I don't necessarily object to this, but if they are that sophisticated, it seems that "mindless" undead should, instead of having no Intelligence score (ability to solve problems), have an Intelligence score but no Wisdom score (free will), and then move selected Wisdom-dependent Skills (Perception for starters) over to use their Intelligence modifier instead of their Wisdom modifier. Same thing should probably apply to automaton Constructs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Those are some nice houserules that are not in any of the spell descriptions or bestiary entries. It's really cool how you s!!@ on an idea just because it's an [evil] spell.

There are much more diplomatic ways of putting this duder. Can we at least TRY to keep things friendly here?

House-ruling it doesn't work has as much support as house-ruling that it does work, rules are pretty bland and vacant in regards to things like cheap undead labor on purpose. It's less "facts" and more "opinions," figuratively speaking.

I'd still stick with necromantic pollution, workarounds would include farming negative-energy resistant mushrooms or similar plants, ranching hardier mutant livestock, decontaminating areas with holy magic from a "switch-hitter" temple (Abadar, god of civilization/cities/trade, has lawful good and lawful evil clerics), or magically engineered glowy plants which basically eat necromancy and poo out clean dirt and positive energy. Crop rotation between "cleanser" glowcaps, regular soybean, and necro-resistant wheat could be a thing. The glowcaps would cause degradation on the plod laborers, the consecration/blessing/whatever clerics would always be a source of political trouble, and the mutant crops that were gene-jacked to handle the shifting energy tides could lead to interesting side-effects like Ghoran or Allergies. It would be weird, it would be fluid, it would be alive.

Also undead, I suppose.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Seriously, again, sans having a will of their own, common mindless undead are as mentally functional as human beings. *headdesk*

That's why they are good sentries, tomb guardians, laborers, and a general *****-minion to badguys who just need some dudes. They are functionally similar to highly advanced AI robots. They have no will of their own but are capable of solving basic problems.
{. . .}

I don't necessarily object to this, but if they are that sophisticated, it seems that "mindless" undead should, instead of having no Intelligence score (ability to solve problems), have an Intelligence score but no Wisdom score (free will), and then move selected Wisdom-dependent Skills (Perception for starters) over to use their Intelligence modifier instead of their Wisdom modifier. Same thing should probably apply to automaton Constructs.

I am strongly opposed to it. "Mindless" should mean "mindless" in my opinion, simple old-school scifi robot with extremely literal parsing and hilarious unintended consequences.

But as I said, that's my opinion, not Pathfinder rules fact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Those are some nice houserules that are not in any of the spell descriptions or bestiary entries. It's really cool how you s!!@ on an idea just because it's an [evil] spell.

There are much more diplomatic ways of putting this duder. Can we at least TRY to keep things friendly here?

House-ruling it doesn't work has as much support as house-ruling that it does work, rules are pretty bland and vacant in regards to things like cheap undead labor on purpose. It's less "facts" and more "opinions," figuratively speaking.

I'd still stick with necromantic pollution, workarounds would include farming negative-energy resistant mushrooms or similar plants, ranching hardier mutant livestock, decontaminating areas with holy magic from a "switch-hitter" temple (Abadar, god of civilization/cities/trade, has lawful good and lawful evil clerics), or magically engineered glowy plants which basically eat necromancy and poo out clean dirt and positive energy. Crop rotation between "cleanser" glowcaps, regular soybean, and necro-resistant wheat could be a thing. The glowcaps would cause degradation on the plod laborers, the consecration/blessing/whatever clerics would always be a source of political trouble, and the mutant crops that were gene-jacked to handle the shifting energy tides could lead to interesting side-effects like Ghoran or Allergies. It would be weird, it would be fluid, it would be alive.

Also undead, I suppose.

Wonderful, that would be substantially more fun than either "Yes, your zombie farm works as you wish" or "No, your zombie farm does not work."

Creativity should be encouraged, not shut down simply for the sake of RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
My point about supervision was made because someone claimed in the previous thread that the undead could work 24 hours straight, and I was simply claiming that they are not smart enough for effective work with no supervision, so they can only work 24 hours straight if you have overseers doing the same.

Firstly, being able to have 1 person per shift and a tireless ox is going to be a good thing. Secondly, they will follow your instructions, so if you leave it to simple tasks, there should be no more trouble than giving simple instructions to a human being.

I've worked in simple laborer-style jobs before. Managers weren't around all the time, because they would just leave the employees with a set of basic instructions such as: "Do this, when done with that, do this thing over here, when done with that, do this, and when all of these things are done, just sweep and clean until your shift ends".

Undead and golems are no different. You can't tell them mix you up some alchemist fire, but you can most definitely give them instructions such as:

"Plow this field, making 12 rows stretching end to end. When you are done with this field, do the same with that one and that one. When you are done, put the tools back where you got them, then stand around until given further instruction,"

Quote:
I still think zombies would be a very bad plan, but I can now see a potential use for skeletons. They still have disadvantages - the creator is limited in how many they can have going at once without some being uncontrolled, there is still a risk of them attacking the farmer's livestock/kids.

You keep saying this, but it just isn't true without house rules. Nothing in the skeleton's bestiary entry says that and animate dead doesn't work that way.

Quote:

Actually it seems just plausible enough to make a good adventure hook when things go awry.

By the way, there is an AP where the local insects carry disease from undead. In this case it's ghouls but the PCs can catch ghoul fever just by being bit my mosquitoes.

That's kind of stupid. Ghoul fever is a supernatural disease. What's next Mummy Rot? Lycanthropy?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Seriously, again, sans having a will of their own, common mindless undead are as mentally functional as human beings. *headdesk*

That's why they are good sentries, tomb guardians, laborers, and a general *****-minion to badguys who just need some dudes. They are functionally similar to highly advanced AI robots. They have no will of their own but are capable of solving basic problems.
{. . .}

I don't necessarily object to this, but if they are that sophisticated, it seems that "mindless" undead should, instead of having no Intelligence score (ability to solve problems), have an Intelligence score but no Wisdom score (free will), and then move selected Wisdom-dependent Skills (Perception for starters) over to use their Intelligence modifier instead of their Wisdom modifier. Same thing should probably apply to automaton Constructs.

Wisdom doesn't affect your free will beyond allowing you to resist mind-affecting things. One moment.

Core Rulebook wrote:

Intelligence (Int)

Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.

Wisdom (Wis)
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition.

Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. ... For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.”

Intelligence governs the whole free-will thing because it's required to have an alignment sans a subtype. That's the funny thing about mindless undead is their alignment absolutely must shift to Neutral very soon after animation because of the rules on alignment and their not possessing any rule marking them as an exception (there creature type has no affect on alignment, and they have no mechanic that makes them an exception to the normal rules for alignment).

This is actually why undead minions are a good idea for badguys. They are 110% loyal, moreso than fanatical followers. They have no self interest, ambition, greed, or personal desires. They likewise have no sense of sympathy, mercy, or depths they refuse to sink. It's why they are frightening as enemies because there is no fear, there is no morale, there is no bribery, there is no parlay or talking them out of hurting you if that is what they are meant to do.

They don't get bored, they don't have to change shifts, they don't wander off because they saw another skeleton with a few more rib bones than them. You can put an undead creature at a post and tell them something like "Allow no one not bearing this seal to enter" and by golly you know that's exactly what that skeleton guard is going to do. He's not going to decide he's hungry and wander away from his post when his manager isn't looking to see what's in the fridge, he's going to be there armed and ready to defend.

Of course, this can also be used as a plot point/fun goal. For example, if you have a series off passcards needed to get past the sentries, the PCs might jump one of the badguy's fleshier minions, obtain one of the passcards and use that to gain access (maybe forging a few extra ones since the undead aren't going to be awesome at detecting forged documents).

The utter ineptitude that has been ascribed to them, and by proxy virtually all magical constructs, would make them depressingly useless and would ruin tons and tons of things they have historically been used for in RPGs (such as tomb guardians, riddle keepers, etc).

One great example would be a massive zombie or golem who has been instructed to pose a riddle to someone. Now said creature doesn't have to actually "get" the riddle, but he could be instructed as what to say and the correct answer. Such as:

"Ask anyone who comes through here this riddle," *tells riddle* "If one answers 'eggs' then let them pass," and voila, you have a ward-golem. As opposed to...

"I told you to ask them a riddle, not randomly decide to smash my crystal ball because I wasn't actively barking orders, you jackass robot!"


Ashiel wrote:

Firstly, being able to have 1 person per shift and a tireless ox is going to be a good thing. Secondly, they will follow your instructions, so if you leave it to simple tasks, there should be no more trouble than giving simple instructions to a human being.

I've worked in simple laborer-style jobs before. Managers weren't around all the time, because they would just leave the employees with a set of basic instructions such as: "Do this, when done with that, do this thing over here, when done with that, do this, and when all of these things are done, just sweep and clean until your shift ends".

Undead and golems are no different. You can't tell them mix you up some alchemist fire, but you can most definitely give them instructions such as:

"Plow this field, making 12 rows stretching end to end. When you are done with this field, do the same with that one and that one. When you are done, put the tools back where you got them, then stand around until given further instruction,"

That is well beyond the scope of simple instructions. Simple commands doesn't mean you can leave the thing unsupervised and expect it to work for you. You can't give a zombie the command "put the tools away" so much as you can say "grab that wrench", and then "Place the wrench in the chest." You can't script a whole set of interactions and go take a nap.

And yes if you summon to many undead it will become uncontrolled, which means it will revert to default behavior, for a NE mindless undead that means assualting the local villagers. Yes you can assign them to stand guard at an entrance and leave, but if you keep summoning undead and that one becomes uncontrolled it will no longer continue to carry out those orders. That doesn't mean it will randomly smash stuff, it means it will either stand there and attack anyone who approaches, or wander off in search of flesh to eat.

Undead are not the same as golems, which have no basic desires or drivers and thus will simply stand there if they become uncontrolled.


Why would the necromancer summon more undead than he can control at one time? Why would anyone ever do that?


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Why would the necromancer summon more undead than he can control at one time? Why would anyone ever do that?

Doesn't matter, we aren't talking about if someone would or wouldn't, or why they would, we are discussing what happens if they do.


But, his entire business/class hinges on him not doing that. He would take extra concern and have to reassure the farmers themselves that he would never do that. This is only an issue if the NECROMANCER forgets the rules of ANIMATING DEAD.


Ashiel wrote:


Stuff

RAW is there actually a strict definition of what simple commands are? To me, those are not simple commands. Simple commands are things like "attack anyone who enters here" "Stay", "Come", "Follow".

Basically I consider simple commands to be on par with stuff you can train animals to do. Obviously you don't need to go through a rigorous degree of training of each individual undead, like you might with a living animal, but I would expect the "simple" commands you describe above to be too complex.

If there isn't actually a strict definition of "simple commands" than you are in a GM interpretation zone, and should expect table to table variance.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Why would the necromancer summon more undead than he can control at one time? Why would anyone ever do that?

You May need a wraith to con drain the Tarrasque. And decide to let some of your undead farmers go rogue for a time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

Wisdom doesn't affect your free will beyond allowing you to resist mind-affecting things. One moment.

Core Rulebook wrote:

Intelligence (Int)

Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.

Wisdom (Wis)
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition.

Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. ... For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.”

...?

I find your argument unconvincing.

It's a question of order complexity. "Plow a field" is actually pretty complex because it requires contextual information a mindless automaton probably won't have. It doesn't know what a field is, it doesn't know how far apart the spaces should be or how straight the lines need to be (can't be "perfectly" straight, especially if you hit a rock), it doesn't know what a plow is or which direction to face the plow, I mean, hitching up and getting a plow to work isn't THAT complex, but it's about as complicated as wielding a sword, which a Plod can't automatically do either. To pull a programming reference again, XKCD explains why it can be really hard to get a Plod to do something real simple.

Doing an input-output of riddle, passphrase, or keycard is pretty easy, you show it the stimulus, the response, the wait time, and it's good to go. You ask it to pick a ripe peach you're adding exponential degrees of complexity that its simple robot brain can't handle.

Now, having the plod break down and go berserk is a house rule, but so is having it NOT do anything. If a bird pecks at it does it register an attack? Does it ignore all attacks, unto being smashed by a bull that hates its unnatural smell and feel? Does it respond to all perceived attacks, thereby causing it to murder a child who got too close because it misinterpreted a movement as a failed attack? What the POS programming can handle and what it can't are both *necessary* house rules, because what's in the book is (I believe intentionally) vague.

But to bring this back to a POINT, you're painting lines and making house rules while being rather belligerent to people with different opinions as to what those rules should be.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Why would the necromancer summon more undead than he can control at one time? Why would anyone ever do that?

I dunno. It's so far beyond the scope of what my original commentary about a "rent a corpse" necromancer ever suggested. A basic 5th level cleric necromancer (or a 1st level adept with a scroll or something) can control 4 HD worth of undead (maybe, animate dead interacts with magic items is strange ways since you use the CL of the scroll for all effects related to the spell, which includes HD limits, but that's a can of worms with no right answer).

The original thing I said was that it was merely an animator raising a few utility critters like beasts of burden (I chose ox because it's a pretty sweet animal good for hauling, plowing, and it's an animal so it's less offensive than animating your Uncle Stew) and then renting out his minions for labor. I never said anything about animating tons of undead. >_>

Even then, you get stuff like this...

Quote:
That is well beyond the scope of simple instructions. Simple commands doesn't mean you can leave the thing unsupervised and expect it to work for you. You can't give a zombie the command "put the tools away" so much as you can say "grab that wrench", and then "Place the wrench in the chest." You can't script a whole set of interactions and go take a nap.

Fabricated.

Quote:
And yes if you summon to many undead it will become uncontrolled, which means it will revert to default behavior, for a NE mindless undead that means assualting the local villagers.

Again, fabricated. Also you don't summon undead, you make them.

Quote:
Undead are not the same as golems, which have no basic desires or drivers and thus will simply stand there if they become uncontrolled.

Again, fabricated.


Cap. Darling wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Why would the necromancer summon more undead than he can control at one time? Why would anyone ever do that?
You May need a wraith to con drain the Tarrasque. And decide to let some of your undead farmers go rogue for a time.

How is a wraith going to get close enough to the Tarrasque for a touch attack without getting oneshot? Did you guys feeblemind the necromancer when I wasn't looking?


I never said it can't plow the field, I just said you need to supervise it because giving a list of 25 things to do and walking away isn't going to fly as a simple command.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Why would the necromancer summon more undead than he can control at one time? Why would anyone ever do that?

Assuming a PC is the necromancer doing the work (or even a NPC that is likely to do adventurous activities), than I assume that at some point he is going to want to use his animate dead and similar spells at some point in an adventure.

So if our PC wants to keep his undead oxen business going, he has to basically:

Be high enough level to have lots of HD available to use. At which point, he will be making way way more money off selling loot

Not prepare these spells at all while traveling, which kind of makes the whole necromancer character idea sort of moot

Be very stingy with his business and use of undead, or simply make sure he loans none out to customers when he is adventuring. Which again, may make him less reliable than just buying an oxen.

I mean as a concept, sure it could work. But it strikes me as a low level NPC idea, not a PC character. And remember, the point of Pathfinder is to go and fight monster and have adventurers. It's dungeon and dragons, not offices and taxes.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Why would the necromancer summon more undead than he can control at one time? Why would anyone ever do that?
You May need a wraith to con drain the Tarrasque. And decide to let some of your undead farmers go rogue for a time.
How is a wraith going to get close enough to the Tarrasque for a touch attack without getting oneshot? Did you guys feeblemind the necromancer when I wasn't looking?

Irrelevant. If we assume the Necromancer is a PC doing his "rent a dead ox" thing for money on the side it's not at all unlikely that in the course of his adventures, he's going to need to create or control some undead in a life or death situation - Either he accepts that's he's a weaker adventurer than he needs to be and thus risks dying and loosing all his undead, or he keeps in mind that he may need to create new ones to deal with the crisis of the moment.

It doesn't matter what the adventuring crisis happens to be.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Quote:
And yes if you summon to many undead it will become uncontrolled, which means it will revert to default behavior, for a NE mindless undead that means assualting the local villagers.

Again, fabricated. Also you don't summon undead, you make them.

Quote:
Undead are not the same as golems, which have no basic desires or drivers and thus will simply stand there if they become uncontrolled.
Again, fabricated.

Actually...no, it's not. Firstly, zombies explicitly state they do almost precisely this in their bestiary entry.

Secondly, and admittedly less of a pure rules call, but the people at Paizo have explicitly stated that this is what all mindless undead do when uncontrolled. Is that strictly RAW? Not quite, no, but with absolutely no statements about what skeletons do when uncontrolled, and a NE alignment (which implies hurting, oppressing, or killing others, remember) expanding the zombie description of what they do uncontrolled to them is hardly a stretch.

So...it's debatably not a strict rules call that this must happen (though I'd argue the Alignment rules argue strongly it should), but it's certainly not fabricated per se. It's a valid ruling supported by the Paizo staff.

Calling it fabricated is inaccurate and insulting.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Why would the necromancer summon more undead than he can control at one time? Why would anyone ever do that?
You May need a wraith to con drain the Tarrasque. And decide to let some of your undead farmers go rogue for a time.
How is a wraith going to get close enough to the Tarrasque for a touch attack without getting oneshot? Did you guys feeblemind the necromancer when I wasn't looking?

You're being obtuse, sometimes a necromancer needs his bucket back. Renting from an adventurer who casts EVIL SPELLS (they are evil let us not forget) means trusting him to not decide, "eh, the peasants can probably handle Ol' Zeddy goin' wandering monster, time to set 'er free so I can make my undead Mole Machine." I mean, I would not trust a GOOD adventurer with something like that, why would I trust a defiled wizard who sins against god and man?

On a larger scale, there is plenty of fluff saying Plods that aren't locked up or currently following standing orders will "go feral" and start killing people eventually. It is their nature. It's DM fiat how long (and if) they start doing the Wandering Monster thing, so a smart player should expect control issues and have back-up plans.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Eventually I think you would just end up in some sort of feudal share-cropping system, where the peasantry is permanently in-debt and under the control of a necromantic aristocracy. As a setting element that is great of course, but also provides a pretty good reason why its not widespread and hasn't replaced normal use of oxen/human labor.

Amusingly, this isn't a bad description of Geb, though they go more for plantations farmed entirely by undead under an overseer of some sort.

Still, amusingly close to an existing Golarion world element.

Yeah you could get some really great ideas for a campaign or setting from this thread, but I don't think they work that well for PC's or "average" nations.

You also sort of have to evaluate these rules within the context of the setting. For instance, Pharasma is a pretty influential and widely worshiped God on Golarion, and her clergy would not be friendly at all to such a money-making scheme. From a player perspective, I don't think I would ever assume this would work by default interpretation of the rules.


kestral287 wrote:


Two questions then:

1. How much time do I have to spend training a twelve year old kid to manage my undead animals?

2. Do you include the part about being a walking biohazard when I do the far more intelligent thing and animate them as skeletons instead?

To the first question, that can be fairly easily answered by looking at the random starting age tables. Assuming a human, and they take up formal training in a class that can 'manage undead' that'd be training them to be a cleric, but also a cleric able to cast 2nd or 3rd level spells. I'd say 8 years at Skeletal College, giving them a starting age of 20 years at a high enough level should be adequate.

Oracles have delayed access to spell levels, so they'd need to be higher in level, so it'd take about the same time.

Sorcerers have a lower minimum age, but only get the undead spells a level later, and have delayed spell levels like oracles, so they'd take an amount of time between a cleric and a wizard.

Wizards would of course take the longest time because of the length of training time coupled with only getting to undead spells at a higher spell level than the cleric.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's how my necromancy-enhanced economy would work. This might be a dreadful place for living humanoids, sort of like large parts of the modern world. Or it might be quite pleasant. Hard to say. I could see Abadar being all for it, just as earth Economists are all for use of fossil fuels. Such a world might have a strong 'steampunk' feel. How do you think those exotic steampunk devices are actually powered?

1. No zombies, just skeletons. Cleanliness is virtue. Probably only skeletal animals, too, to avoid offending people. Also, animal skeletons probably have better power-to-weight ratios for specialized tasks.

2. They are only used for muscle work. E.g. Turning a wheel to pump water, drive a wagon, whatever. Nothing where they can make mistakes. Treat each skeleton as a small engine. Call it a skelemotor. Basically, think of any task now done with with an engine or electric motor, and it can probably be done just as well with a skelemotor.

3. Skeletons are modified for the job. Dangerous bits are removed. E.g. The skeletons that pump water are in a locked pump house, chained to the equipment, pumping with their LEGS. Also their jaws and arms are removed. That way, if they DO go rogue, they are already rendered harmless and chained down.

4. Keep all the undead out of sight. A visitor will never, ever see one. They'll just note that some wondrous devices always operate with no visible source of power. When was the last time you saw the cylinders in an internal combustion engine, or the coils in an electric motor? What's the best possible power-to-weight ratio of a skeleton in a box? It's probably better than that of early steam engines, and requires no fuel ...

5. Train lots of people to build, maintain and operate them. This includes quite a few low-powered spell casters. Given the immense economic gains to be had, and thus the high status of this specialty class, it would be easy to get recruits. Perhaps call them 'engineers' or 'mechanics'.

6. Various other safeguards. Basically, each time a problem occurs, modify the system to account for that problem.

7. Further note that, with the correct mathematical underpinnings, Golarion's version of Alan Turing could build a working computer using only small, individually stupid animated skeletons. The smaller are the constituent animated skeletons, the more powerful the computer.

I'm afraid that, with all those precaution and some I have not thought of, all the arguments against (except for 'GM won't allow it') can be easily overcome. No one raised an objection that can't be overcome with some cleverness. Mind you, 'GM won't allow it' is a great reason, and the only one needed.

Again, I suggest that, while an undead energy-slave based economy would work, it's a really really bad idea likely to go wrong [Rise of the undead in 1599 London]. Just like, in the modern world, burning fossil fuel for energy works, but it's a really really bad idea [Abbreviated History of Fossil Fuel use].

51 to 100 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why zombie livestock is a bad idea All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.