Should undead recieve some traits?

[Tippsey]

Alright alright , I know the undead are created not born so all traits certaintly wouldn't work. Like loyal since there kinda mindless. And I can see quick not applying as there all made the same way., but what about strong and resilint. This could be explained by the dark energies which make them could have worked better then normal, strengthening the body,(strong) Or enforcing it (resiliant) Now I know many of you might say this is overpowered but tobalance it maybe it should be possible for them, to get a new trait all to themselves which lowers their hp, showing the magics not binding the body together very well.

[Breeblebox]

Interesting. I would have thought there was definitely a case for resilient. Why not have tougher skeletons (in the calcified sense) within an even distribution. It seems the factions have a subset of available traits assigned as it is, so this wouldn't be a difficulty. 'Dextrous', being available only to elves(?), and 'Steadfast', being available only to Dwarves are demonstrations of this mechanism.

Strong on the other hand might be harder to reconcile and even harder to agree on.... ;]

As for the others, let's see;

Intelligent - doesn't scream undead to me.

Quick - Possibly, if we could agree that the even distribution of heftier (resilient) skeletons would compliment an even distribution of slighter (quick) skeletons.

Suggestions for unique undead traits could begin;

Singleminded (FWOABN) - Unit treats dusk and dawn as night. Might require engine support, as opposed to configuration.

Remnants - Unit retains amoured trappings of it's previous life, ie; reduced impact damage. Once again, prolly requires support to be built in to the game mechanics.

I would be interested to know from someone (I'm so lazy/ busy. Sorry) if wesnoth currently supports arbitrarily defined traits. This would be a neat way to expand the possibilities for traits to the nth degree. It would certainly free up the realm of trait invention to the point where new character traits were no longer reinventions of the basic 'unit stat altering' ilk.

...but I digress.

BTW I used skeletons as an example for simplicity. Presumably the traits can be selectively applied on a per unit basis, as they can based on factional affilliation.

B.

[Arthelorn]

Um, Steadfast is an [i]ability[/i], not a trait.

[Breeblebox]

Yeah, I'm not flash not the distinction. Maybe it was a bad example....

[Kafka]

I believe the Undead could get strong or resillient, depending on both the conditions on how they were made, and what they were made from. Let's face it, some people have stronger muscles that would still be strong when they became walking corpses. Also, there is the idea of strong bones, this wouldn't increase the skelotons attack, but would open them up to being resilliant ocasionally.

Another thought, why are all undead human undead? Necromancers don't have room to be choosey, and bones/corpses from different races mean that not all skelotons, corpses, and ghouls will come out the same. Some skelotons may even be a mix of bodies, just randomly assorted bones. This means some undead will be stronger, faster, or more ressiliant than others. A dwarf corpse may be ressilliant, where a elf one is more likely quick, this means undead could possibly have a logical reason for having traits. Heck, this may even open to a new set of possible traits, like having a ghoul or walking corpse be fire resistant because they came from drakes.

[turin]

You are only assuming that they are all human corpses. I bet some are elves, and some orcs; elves, humans and orcs all have similar body structures. I think an animated skeleton from any of them would have about the same stats.

About dwarf corpses; if I was a necromancer, I wouldn't resurrect dwarves. The only advantage of dwarves is their immensely strong muscles, which let them bear heavy armor and still move. Without them, their corpses are in all ways imaginable worse than humanoid* corpses. So why would a necromancer resurrect them? Its not like dwarf corpses are more plentiful, either - dwarves are an uncommon race.

*: As in, elves, orcs, and humans

[SaintDust]

i always though the undead are mindless, and that they needed a unit with leadership ability.

as for the other things mentioned im totaly on board for it. They already resist poison, but adding one unique trait for undead would be worth while.

[Cuyo Quiz]

Ok, time to say it:

1. Since undead are mindless (although TDH shows that revenants have some will, and also a serving attitude to his master), shouldn't they be neutral?

2. I think them having traits is quite possible (if we assume they aren't that mindless and have some personality or something, i recall the ¨fake soul¨ theory). Maybe skeletons couldn't be that different from another (unless bones are just randomly assembled), but maybe a fake soul may be different from another.

[turin]

I think that TDH has some compatibility problems with the rest of the Wesnoth canon. Yet another reason it should be removed.

IIRC, undead are completely controlled by the necromancer that raised them. They have no will if their own. No "fake soul" deal. Once the necromancer that raised them is dead, they go into "find and destroy" mode. They don't have a personality, they are like robots that want to kill people.

[Cuyo Quiz]

Wow, that was fast. May i ask why do they go in ''find and destroy'' mode?(this is the part about common fantasy undead that i did NEVER understood, i can see someone making them go into that mode, but no reason for them to go into that mode by themselves).

[turin]

That is the default mode of undead. They only do not do that when controlled by a necromancer. It is their default mode because they are from the land of the dead, and want to make it more populous. If undead not controlled by a necromancer ever succeed in actually destroying all life, they will kill themselves. Then everyone will be in the land of the dead.

[Cuyo Quiz]

Isn't that saying they have a soul?

I mean, they have objectives, althought they may not be smart seeing they will only hack and slash. (Does the necromancer know of this objective of them?)

Should we move or stop this diatribe about undead?

[turin]

No, its not. Does an animal have a soul? I would say no, but it still moves around, searches for food, etc. I would think of undead as the same. They can move around and do stuff, but they are like animals.

The necromancer knows of this, but he can control them. His magical energy is spent more towards controlling them than animating them; animating them is a one-time deal.

And no, we shouldn't stop, this is fun.

[scott]

Animals and plants have mortal souls. People have immortal souls. Undead - no souls. It's in Aquinas somewhere (except for the undead part).

Edit: this is probably why the concept of undead creatures was so creepy when it was original. Without the perspective of olden people that the soul animates life, it wouldn't be so abominable for a soulless thing to also be animated.

Edit 2: sorry if this has nothing to do with the thread. I only just read the last few posts and spewed some text.

[Cuyo Quiz]

I use a sorta-shintoist approach. Everything has spiritual energy, this energy may not be a soul, it may or may not be conscious ( i consider being self-concious or acting in some way a requisite to be a soul, just because it separates yourself from the sorroundings and allows development ).

A rock has energy, but until that energy has a behaviour or conciousness it won't be a soul.

You'll see, for me animals do have souls (although Descartes said that our soul is what makes us different and that an animal is like a clockwork machine, only made of flesh).

Is this explanation the Westhonian approach or your personal approach?.

EDIT:Regarding scott's post, i think that souls aren't necesarily immortal, they are just a special configuration of energy.

EDIT2:scott, we have already conquered this thread, it's new purpose it's to achieve universal knowledge about the undead.