@Shandyr and @Edwin, ROFL. Just kidding. Please keep in mind that I am a cat person. Umm, should I have said "vampire kobold"? "Vampire chihuahua"? "Vampire gnoll?" LOL.
I don't think zombies ever become skeletons. I have always assumed that whatever magic animates a zombie also prevents it from further decomposition, because otherwise no zombie would be a threat for more than a week or so before it fell apart in a pile of decaying flesh. It's just one of those assumptions you kind of have to take for granted when dealing with zombies.
If you're referring to what differentiates a zombie from a skeleton, I think it probably has to do with the nature of the spell that animates the creature. If the resultant undead still needs sinew and muscle fibers to hold itself together, it is a zombie. If the bones stay together purely through magic, it is a skeleton.
Yeah pretty much this. To animate a Skeleton you need way more magical power than for a Ghoul and you could say, that there is a limitation that you cannot animate a corpse with flesh on it as a Skeleton because the flesh would hinder the new movement mechanisms the Skeleton spell gives them.
That said if you investigate the skeletons at the beginning of Planescape: Torment there are some lines like "their bones are hold together by bolts, magic can do only so much". I guess for a temporary animate dead spell magic alone works but who did go around and bolt all these skeletons together you meet in BG1. They seem to have risen "naturally".
I don't think zombies ever become skeletons. I have always assumed that whatever magic animates a zombie also prevents it from further decomposition, because otherwise no zombie would be a threat for more than a week or so before it fell apart in a pile of decaying flesh. It's just one of those assumptions you kind of have to take for granted when dealing with zombies.
If you're referring to what differentiates a zombie from a skeleton, I think it probably has to do with the nature of the spell that animates the creature. If the resultant undead still needs sinew and muscle fibers to hold itself together, it is a zombie. If the bones stay together purely through magic, it is a skeleton.
If undead animation halts decomposition, then what's the difference between a zombie and a mummy? The way I see it is that zombies are animated remains of the recently-dead and skeletons (unless purposely defleshed) are the animated remains of the long-dead. Zombies are still subject to decomposition, unlike Mummies which have been mummified to prevent rotting. So, I would argue that zombies, if not destroyed, eventually become skeletons--I suppose it's up to one's macabre imagination as to the grotesque, gradual process by which this occurs.
Even liches decompose, albeit at a much slower rate. Someone who recently achieved lichdom will be viritually indistinguishable from their apperance while they were among the living, while an ancient lich like Larloch will be nothing but a skeleton. Eventually, ancient liches become demi-liches, with only a small part of their physical form left, such as a skull, allowing them to exist extra-dimensionally (such as the ethereal plane).
Vampires seem to be the only corporeal undead that are not subject to decomposition. Isn't that one of the reasons we glamorize them so much? Although most people's image of vampires is based on Hollywood's vampire archetype rather than the vampire monsters of traditional folklore.
Mindful necromancers who are tidy with their undead creations will most likely cast an Embalm spell (from the 2e Complete Book of Necromancers) on zombies to prevent further rotting (and make them somewhat bearable to be around). The most haugty of necromancers would probably prefer a retinue of armoured skeletons with polished weapons or embalmed, recently-dead zombies than a collection of lurching, reeking, oozing corpses.
Sorry if anyone was reading this while eating. @Shandyr
From D&D 3e onwards, zombies are mindless undead while mummies are intelligent undead. Unlife as a mummy is an alternative to lichdom, as in both cases you retain your class abilities. Zombies lose their class abilities and sentience, which isn't that hot for the prospective immortal necromancer.
Trivia: Lichdom requires the crafting of a phylactery, which takes four months of work in D&D 3.5. On the other hand, mummification only requires Create Greater Undead, which is a standard action (one round). Lichdom is available when the prospective lich hits 11th level, while mummification requires an 8th level spell. Basically, lichdom takes longer to achieve but is available much earlier, while mummification takes no time at all but requires a high level caster.
Edit: Oops... Create Undead instead of Create Greater Undead. And it requires a 15th-level or higher caster to create a mummy with Create Undead.
From D&D 3e onwards, zombies are mindless undead while mummies are intelligent undead. Unlife as a mummy is an alternative to lichdom, as in both cases you retain your class abilities. Zombies lose their class abilities and sentience, which isn't that hot for the prospective immortal necromancer.
Trivia: Lichdom requires the crafting of a phylactery, which takes four months of work in D&D 3.5. On the other hand, mummification only requires Create Greater Undead, which is a standard action (one round). Lichdom is available when the prospective lich hits 11th level, while mummification requires an 8th level spell. Basically, lichdom takes longer to achieve but is available much earlier, while mummification takes no time at all but requires a high level caster.
Edit: Oops... Create Undead instead of Create Greater Undead. And it requires a 15th-level or higher caster to create a mummy with Create Undead.
Taking four months to create a phylactery seems reasonable, but creating a mummy in one hour (the 3e spell description says one hour, not one round) sounds a little far-fetched. Mummification in Ancient Egypt was a process that took over 40 days, so "Create Undead" seems like the fast food of undead creation spells.
We always assumed in my groups that the spell would make all the steps for mummification, including the wrapping and organ removal.
The main difference between a mummy and a zombie is the ritual itself that allows the mummy to retain some intelligence and gives it its special powers.
We always assumed in my groups that the spell would make all the steps for mummification, including the wrapping and organ removal.
The main difference between a mummy and a zombie is the ritual itself that allows the mummy to retain some intelligence and gives it its special powers.
Seems like the invention of OCD Necromancers who were in a hurry and didn't want to make a mess. I can hear the old-school Necromancers complaining now: "In MY day, we took out the organs and wrapped the corpses with our OWN hands...and we LIKED it!"
@mlnevese Starring Michael Palin as the crotchety, Necromancer elder lecturing to the younger, upstart sect of OCD Necromancers, played by John Cleese, Graham Chapman, and Terry Jones (who's dressed as a woman, of course).
@Shandyr, I think any vampire animal would still have only its animal behavior and intelligence, and that's how you'd tell the difference. A polymorphed humanoid vamp would exhibit humanoid behavior and intelligence - it's usually trying to get back to its coffin, or perhaps to travel more quickly from one place to another, or to try to gain a form-based tactical advantage in melee with an opponent.
I wonder if the "vampire bat" got its name because people thought they really were vampires when they observed them drinking the blood of other mammals?
We actually have "vampire wolves" in the game, and they still behave exactly as normal wolves, often running with packs of non-vampirized wolves, dire wolves, and wargs. One wonders how they became vampires in the first place? Did a human vampire with some kind of beast fetish "go wolf" and breed with and then turn a real wolf?
Also, are those vampire wolf packleaders going to "turn" the other pack members eventually? Maybe they have enough intelligence to instinctively find advantage in not turning the rest of the pack. Like, maybe the alpha male will only turn the chosen alpha female, and they will only turn the one strongest puppy from their litters; (assuming they can still reproduce, and that the puppies aren't then born as vampires).
And yes, I know that the "undead" vampires used to be considered unable to reproduce sexually, but any depiction of vampires for at least the past fifty years has depicted them as still very interested in sex, with the latest incarnations actually able to bear young when mating with an unturned mate, which is also usually depicted as "forbidden" by the vampire "rulers", "ruling class", "gods", or "society".
We need a vampire zoologist and a vampire sociologist.
I really do not understand why a vampire would be interested in sex at all unless as a way to feed.
Sexual drive comes, basically, from our instinct to reproduce. Vampires do not reproduce by sexual means, so they shouldn't really have a sexual drive.
@mlnevese, and yet, strangely, they do, at least in contemporary depictions of them. The sexualization of the vampire legend is why so many people fantasize about being one.
Comments
(Vampire Dr. Seuss, set to vampire music:)
Vampire dogs, vampire cats, vampire mice, vampire rats.
Vampire ogres, vampire gnolls, vampire wolves, vampire trolls.
Vampire humans, vampire dragon(!), vampire elves, let's drink a flagon!
Vampire goblins, vampire mage, vampire bears, set the stage!
Vampire bat, vampire kobold, you have no hope! So I'm told!
Vampire Tranzig, vampire Sarevok, vampire Rieltar, have no block!
Vampire dwarf, vampire doppelganger, vampire halflings, know no anger!
Vampire rabbits, vampire Davaeorn, vampire birds, know no scorn!
Vampire sirens, vampire squirrel, vampire gnomes, you cannot quarrel.
Give ye up hope, for vampire Mulahey, drains you dead, vampire horse goes "Neigheee!"
Vampire basilisks, vampire bandit, resistance is futile, to them you must hand it,
Vampires rule, their power towers, before their might, the hero cowers.
More stanzas, anyone? I'm trying to cover all the creature types, here. I'm sure I've left some out.
That said if you investigate the skeletons at the beginning of Planescape: Torment there are some lines like "their bones are hold together by bolts, magic can do only so much". I guess for a temporary animate dead spell magic alone works but who did go around and bolt all these skeletons together you meet in BG1. They seem to have risen "naturally".
Even liches decompose, albeit at a much slower rate. Someone who recently achieved lichdom will be viritually indistinguishable from their apperance while they were among the living, while an ancient lich like Larloch will be nothing but a skeleton. Eventually, ancient liches become demi-liches, with only a small part of their physical form left, such as a skull, allowing them to exist extra-dimensionally (such as the ethereal plane).
Vampires seem to be the only corporeal undead that are not subject to decomposition. Isn't that one of the reasons we glamorize them so much? Although most people's image of vampires is based on Hollywood's vampire archetype rather than the vampire monsters of traditional folklore.
Mindful necromancers who are tidy with their undead creations will most likely cast an Embalm spell (from the 2e Complete Book of Necromancers) on zombies to prevent further rotting (and make them somewhat bearable to be around). The most haugty of necromancers would probably prefer a retinue of armoured skeletons with polished weapons or embalmed, recently-dead zombies than a collection of lurching, reeking, oozing corpses.
Sorry if anyone was reading this while eating.
From D&D 3e onwards, zombies are mindless undead while mummies are intelligent undead. Unlife as a mummy is an alternative to lichdom, as in both cases you retain your class abilities. Zombies lose their class abilities and sentience, which isn't that hot for the prospective immortal necromancer.
Trivia: Lichdom requires the crafting of a phylactery, which takes four months of work in D&D 3.5. On the other hand, mummification only requires Create Greater Undead, which is a standard action (one round). Lichdom is available when the prospective lich hits 11th level, while mummification requires an 8th level spell. Basically, lichdom takes longer to achieve but is available much earlier, while mummification takes no time at all but requires a high level caster.
Edit: Oops... Create Undead instead of Create Greater Undead. And it requires a 15th-level or higher caster to create a mummy with Create Undead.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createUndead.htm
The main difference between a mummy and a zombie is the ritual itself that allows the mummy to retain some intelligence and gives it its special powers.
I wonder if the "vampire bat" got its name because people thought they really were vampires when they observed them drinking the blood of other mammals?
We actually have "vampire wolves" in the game, and they still behave exactly as normal wolves, often running with packs of non-vampirized wolves, dire wolves, and wargs. One wonders how they became vampires in the first place? Did a human vampire with some kind of beast fetish "go wolf" and breed with and then turn a real wolf?
Also, are those vampire wolf packleaders going to "turn" the other pack members eventually? Maybe they have enough intelligence to instinctively find advantage in not turning the rest of the pack. Like, maybe the alpha male will only turn the chosen alpha female, and they will only turn the one strongest puppy from their litters; (assuming they can still reproduce, and that the puppies aren't then born as vampires).
And yes, I know that the "undead" vampires used to be considered unable to reproduce sexually, but any depiction of vampires for at least the past fifty years has depicted them as still very interested in sex, with the latest incarnations actually able to bear young when mating with an unturned mate, which is also usually depicted as "forbidden" by the vampire "rulers", "ruling class", "gods", or "society".
We need a vampire zoologist and a vampire sociologist.
Sexual drive comes, basically, from our instinct to reproduce. Vampires do not reproduce by sexual means, so they shouldn't really have a sexual drive.