Hmm, the ghosts of Paavik's manor are all treated as undead creatures for influence and so on.

I think this is silly. Ghosts aren't undead, they are dead. If the influence thing is a big deal, keep them uninfluenceable without crow cloak/necromancy, but change the message to 'You have no influence with the dead.'

Otherwise, there are too many problems that follow from the classification. Spirits of ancestors (a big thing in Hartstone) that are summoned will have to be called Undead too. Souls after death would be called Undead, so every almost player will have been undead throughout their lifetime.

It is a minor change, but would make much more sense... and make taking an anti-undead stance a -lot- easier.

This gets brought up a lot, now doesnt it. Pretty much Glomdoring argued that we should ask them for Crow Cloaks though, I still remember them saying to -not- hand them out but you know, things change I guess. Magnagorans with Necromancy can influence them. But that still leaves the Geomancers, Serenwilde and Celest unable to influence them.

Most Celestians and Serens would probably agree to having them be influencable by anyone, and works better I guess.

That's not what I'm arguing.

I just don't want to call them undead.

Edit: Hmm, nevermind, I was told ingame by the admin it is never going to happen. Just have to go with a bit of blind faith and sophistry.

Are they ghosts or ghasts?

They arn't spirits persay, they are more like "haunting ghosts" that want to be dead rather then spirits that don't want to be dead.

They're ghosts, not ghasts.

Still brought up often enough and you gave ideas for changes. People could argue for months on if a ghost is undead or dead. Some people view undead as those that are dead and seen moving about by the living.

So, maybe youre right and they shouldnt be labeled as such.

Take a look here at the heading of "golden ghost"

http://members.dsl-only.net/~bing/frp/fudg...ary/undead.html

I know that the mechanics are not ghasts.. I was talking about the concept.

Anyways, ghosts can be undead.

The problem is, almost any argument you make for saying why the Paavik ghosts fall into the category of undead will mean you end up saying other types of critters Serenwilde should be friendly with are undead too.

I just don't like the thought of ghosts being undead, because it raises too many philosophical problems about the nature of death in Lusternia.

Paavik ghosts are fine.

Undead can be and often are ghosts, and ghosts can be undead. Case closed.

So, when I turn into ghost, am I dead or not?

Wow, if only I'd been able to articulate that amazing insight and depth of examination.

Thankyou!

Not dead, though if you are undead in life, your ghost is undead.

See, I would have said you were dead as a ghost, but not undead.

Now, I have no idea. It depends on why you are a ghost, and all sorts of other things.

Edit: Actually, maybe this is a good thing... I suppose I can argue ghosting should be a crime too, since they might be undead, or something.

A: Why would Serenwilde have any problems with undead? Didn't we allready have that discussion last year?

B: what creatures are you talking about? I thought all the ghostly figures in Serenwilde were spirits.

I say dead is dead. No mind, no nothing. If I'm a ghost and I'm thinking and moving around, I exist so I cannot be dead.

When I turn into a ghost with necromancy I don't die. Though, I'm not sure it's the same kind of ghost. I guess not.

wouldn't that just be non-existant?

It would I suppose. Well, 'dead' in Lusternia relates to a body so I don't know what to think about that anymore.

A: Because it is unnatural to Nature-worshippers, obviously. And if you want to debate that, TAKE IT IN GAME. You can join Serenwilde and argue it there. Wow, that felt good.

B: Yes, but what is the difference between the ghosts of your ancestors, and the spirits of your ancestors, or the souls of your ancestors?

How about... Souls have a dead body somewhere. Ghosts don't have a related body anymore. Spirits never had a body to begin with.

Hey, that isn't bad!

But we'd still have to call them the ghosts of our ancestors, in that case.