# [Scoop?] Libris Mortis: The Book of the Undead, from WotC



## EricNoah (Feb 22, 2004)

Dungeon #109 came to me yesterday, and inside was a new feat called Tomb-Tainted Soul (basically you are healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy, like undead).  It is noted as coming from the "upcoming Libris Mortis: The Book of the Undead, from Wizards of the Coast." 

So what do we think -- is this going to be a big, beautiful book along the lines of Draconomicon?  What do you think should be in there?

I personally hope to see a sort of "master list" of all kinds of special qualities and special attacks for custom-building undead.  Plus suped-up vampires etc.

UPDATE:  The new issue of Dragon confirms that this book is coming out in October 2004, and it will be a Draconomicon-style book for undead.


----------



## Harlock (Feb 22, 2004)

I like the sound of that, Eric.  Although, I am not quite sure how you make undead look beautiful...


----------



## dreaded_beast (Feb 22, 2004)

Sounds cool.

In my opinion, it probably will be similar to the Draconomicon: the majority of the book for the DM, with PrCs to fight undead for the players.

I think I heard somewhere that WotC won't be making anymore "splat" books and that all the books coming out now will be hardcover, so that may be the case for this one.


----------



## Creamsteak (Feb 22, 2004)

Well, looks like the people who were guessing about sequals to Draconomicon (and picked Undead) were right...

Sounds like a solid investment to me.


----------



## johnsemlak (Feb 22, 2004)

'Libris Mortis'... I'm trying to remember my Latin.  Is that good latin?  Shouldn't it be 'Liber Mortis or something?


----------



## nikolai (Feb 22, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> 'Libris Mortis'... I'm trying to remember my Latin.  Is that good latin?  Shouldn't it be 'Liber Mortis or something?




I'm sure someone with better latin will come along soon, but I _think_ Libris is library and Liber is book. Whichever is the case, I don't think 'Libris Mortis' is the best name they could have chosen.


----------



## Ferret (Feb 22, 2004)

Sounds cool.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I'm sure someone with better latin will come along soon, but I _think_ Libris is library and Liber is book. Whichever is the case, I don't think 'Libris Mortis' is the best name they could have chosen.




_libris_ is the ablative or dative plural of _liber_, a book.

_mortis_ is the genitive singular of _mors_, death.

It... doesn't really work.

_liber mortis_ would be the Book of Death; _liber mortuorum_ would be the Book of the Dead, or the Book of Dead People.

-Hyp.


----------



## nikolai (Feb 22, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> _libris_ is the ablative or dative plural of _liber_, a book.
> 
> _mortis_ is the genitive singular of _mors_, death.




What do ablative, dative and genitive mean? And _Libris Mortis_ translates at the _Books of Death_, right?... Doesn't make sense, and doesn't sound that good either.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Feb 22, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> _liber mortis_ would be the Book of Death; _liber mortuorum_ would be the Book of the Dead, or the Book of Dead People.




You amaze me yet again.   Anyhow sounds like an awesome idea and I'll be buying one but hopefully Latin is required.


----------



## Nightfall (Feb 22, 2004)

Well you knew Draconomicon COULDN'T be the only one...


----------



## megamania (Feb 22, 2004)

ooohhhhh....awwww.....   I can't wait.  Time of release?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> What do ablative, dative and genitive mean?




They're cases for nouns.

We don't really have an ablative or dative case in English.  We do have a nominative and a genitive, and a lot of pronouns have an accusative case.

The nominative case is used for the "subject" of a sentence.

"I" is the nominative case of the first person singular pronoun in English.  I only use it when "I" am the subject of the sentence.

The accusative case is kinda the object of the sentence.  "Me" is in the accusative case.

I can't say "The dog bites I."  The dog is the subject of this sentence; I'm the object, so I have to use the accusative case to refer to myself.  This sentence is "The dog bites _me_".

The genitive case is for possessives.  In English, we use apostrophe-S for the genitive singular, and S-apostrophe for the genitive plural.

I don't say "That is the dog ball"; I say "That is the dog's ball".

Pronouns in English have their own genitive case.  "That is I dog" or "That is me dog" are both incorrect; "That is _my_ dog" is correct.

Now, in English, we use the accusative with most prepositions.  "Me" is what I use in all these sentences:

"The dog is with me."
"He took the dog from me."
"He bought the dog for me."
"She gave the dog to me."
"The dog comes to me."

In Latin, however, they would use the ablative form of "me" for the first two, the dative form of "me" for the second two, and the accusative form of "me" for the last one.

Example:

femina: woman
puella: girl
villa: house

_femina villam puellae dedit._  The woman gave the house to the girl.
_femina villae puellam dedit._  The woman gave the girl to the house.
_feminae villam puella dedit._  The girl gave the house to the woman.

The word with the -a ending is in the nominative case. The word with the -ae ending is in the dative case.  The word with the -am ending is in the accusative case.

The nominative is who is giving; the accusative is what is being given; the dative is what (or who) it is being given _to_.

_mortis_ is genitive - the possessive case.  So it means "death's", or "of death".

The genitive singular of _puella_ is _puellae_ (yes, the same as the dative  ).  So "villa puellae" is "the girl's house", or "the house of the girl".



> And _Libris Mortis_ translates at the _Books of Death_, right?




Sort of   Since Libris is either ablative or dative, it only really works in a clause that requires one of those cases.

_puella in Libris Mortis est._  The girl is in the Books of Death.  (The preposition "in" is followed by the ablative case.)

But just saying "Libris Mortis" by itself is... odd.

-Hyp.


----------



## D'karr (Feb 22, 2004)

And even more odd is the fact that the book is supposed to be about UNDEAD not the dead.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Feb 22, 2004)

Nice to see someone at WotC finally paying attention. 

 I'll definitely pick this up; I'm a sucker for undead.  If it has production values as high as Draconomicon's then I don't anticipate being disappointed.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Feb 22, 2004)

The undead suck at latin - it's, after all a dead language, not an undead one. Give'em a break.

A "coffee-table book" about undead sounds weird (that's what they said about the draconomicon), but a big fat complete book about undead would be a nice thing. Could be the second best thing after the Necrotelecomnicon (which tells you how to call the dead)  

What I hope is in?

A comprehensive step-by-step description of your average lichdom ritual. (Insert knive a into virgin b)
a lot of sample zombies and skeletons

Lots of new and revised undead buggers

Something about how undead work

Info for the DM to make the players' life a(n un)living hell (feats, spells, tactics)

Tips for players how to fight undead, fight alongside undead, have undead companions and undead players 

Nice coffin ads . Seriously, maps and descriptions about typical undead dwellings.

Deities of undeath and divine foes of the undead.

And a lot of vampire seductresses (for those who want to see how you can undead look good)


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 22, 2004)

megamania said:
			
		

> ooohhhhh....awwww.....   I can't wait.  Time of release?




Doesn't say.  But we pretty much know the schedule up through about August/Sept so it must be after that.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Feb 22, 2004)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> What I hope is in?




I hope we see:

Templates for every undead that started out as something else.

Slow diseases that convert people into undead.

Rules for playing as undead (ie - what happens to a ghoul who's starving to death?)


----------



## kilamanjaro (Feb 22, 2004)

In a recent interview Andy Collins said something about working on an October product that would "restore a sense of dread for the players".  I'm sure this is it.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 22, 2004)

I think that might be a typo, though -- the other scoop thread that was just closed reported it as _Librim Mortis_.  Of course, my Latin's really sucky, so I don't know if that's right or not.  If only they were Russian cases!


----------



## Knightcrawler (Feb 23, 2004)

Something else to add to the list of all but cinfirmed rumors along with "Complete Arcane:


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 23, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I think that might be a typo, though -- the other scoop thread that was just closed reported it as _Librim Mortis_.




It's "libris" in my copy of Dungeon.  That's not to say that Dungeon staff couldn't have made a typo.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Feb 23, 2004)

I wonder how they call the last book. "Complete Expert"?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 23, 2004)

This sounds cool, but the 2E Van Richten Guides set a very high bar vis-a-vis content.

I'd like to see few new undead humanoids -- we've really got them covered at this point -- but lots more templates, more "ecology" issues, a nice crunchy chapter on necromancy (including time spent on "good" necromancers), some stuff that makes the undead spookier -- it could simply be a general DM advice chapter, if it's really well written -- and so on. I'd also like such practicalities handled as which undead can speak addressed.


----------



## Liolel (Feb 23, 2004)

Sounds Very Intresting. Guess I'll have to wait a while and see first if this is a real project and not a blunder by some editor at paizo. Then there's a longer wait to see if it is any good.


----------



## kilamanjaro (Feb 23, 2004)

I don't think it's a blunder by Paizo, there's a feat from the book in the newest installment of the adventure path.  The feat is pretty sweet for evil clerics, it makes negative energy heal you and positive energy hurt you.


----------



## tarchon (Feb 23, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But just saying "Libris Mortis" by itself is... odd.



My guess would be that the person who came up with it knew "ex libris" and "rigor mortis" and then put them together.

I would call it <i>Nil Nisi Malum</i> but sadly my witty classical allusions would probably remain unappreciated.


----------



## ohGr (Feb 23, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But just saying "Libris Mortis" by itself is... odd.




WotC's imperfect comprehension of latin aside, i'm willing to give them all kinds of credit for not going with the obvious-and rather cliche, IMHO-title of Necronomicon for this book.


----------



## tarchon (Feb 23, 2004)

ohGr said:
			
		

> WotC's imperfect comprehension of latin aside, i'm willing to give them all kinds of credit for not going with the obvious-and rather cliche, IMHO-title of Necronomicon for this book.



That's undoubtedly somebody's trademark too.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2004)

tarchon said:
			
		

> That's undoubtedly somebody's trademark too.




Shame, though.  It would have lent a sense of continuity to the line.

Draconomicon.  Necronomicon.  Diablonomicon.  Pokénomicon.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Feb 23, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Pokénomicon.




Pikachu varata nicktos!


----------



## johnsemlak (Feb 23, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> They're cases for nouns.
> 
> We don't really have an ablative or dative case in English.  We do have a nominative and a genitive, and a lot of pronouns have an accusative case.
> 
> ...



 Very good latin lesson   Brings back memories.

I personally would argue with you where you say we have a genitive case in English.  I think we have a possesive case.  We only use possesive forms to show, well, possetion.  The Genitive case (in Latin and other langauges like Russian) has uses besides possession.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> I personally would argue with you where you say we have a genitive case in English.  I think we have a possesive case.




Sure.  But it didn't seem necessary to get that picky for the purpose at hand 

-Hyp.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 23, 2004)

It would be nice if this book contained some more ideas or variants about how do undead come to unlife, because it quite sucks that most of the undead are always spawned from creatures killed by an undead of the same type or otherwise animated by evil clerics or necromancers.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Feb 23, 2004)

Hmm

I don't know whether to be irritated or extremely happy.  Help!  Moment of crisis! 

Also, shouldn't it be Libris ex Mortis?  Book of the Dead?  As it is, its currently entitled 'book dead'


----------



## Dark Jezter (Feb 23, 2004)

KingOfChaos said:
			
		

> Hmm
> 
> I don't know whether to be irritated or extremely happy.  Help!  Moment of crisis!
> 
> Also, shouldn't it be Libris ex Mortis?  Book of the Dead?  As it is, its currently entitled 'book dead'



 Maybe the title was picked by A Silent Wail.

Two points if you catch the reference.


----------



## Wereserpent (Feb 23, 2004)

They should have zombies with tentacles coming out of their head, not like Mind Flayers, but just coming out of everywhere.  Cause I once had a dream where zombies with tentacles coming out of their head killed an astronaut that was on the moon.  They just came out of nowhere and ate his brains.


----------



## Gez (Feb 23, 2004)

If the title was picked by the "silent whale", then the book is for the d02 system.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 23, 2004)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> The undead suck at latin - it's, after all a dead language, not an undead one. Give'em a break...



 

Lots of good ideas for the book here. But I will only buy it and the Draconomicon once I've restored my cashflow > sense status. Then again, that shouldn't really be too difficult...

I enjoyed the Latin lesson, too. Thanks for the scoop.


----------



## Gez (Feb 23, 2004)

kilamanjaro said:
			
		

> I don't think it's a blunder by Paizo, there's a feat from the book in the newest installment of the adventure path.  The feat is pretty sweet for evil clerics, it makes negative energy heal you and positive energy hurt you.




Especially sweet for wizards and sorcerers. They have spells that deal negative energy damage.


----------



## kilamanjaro (Feb 23, 2004)

I'll be very surprised if this one doesn't have updated versions of the Pale Master and True Necromancer from Tome and Blood in it.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Feb 23, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> Especially sweet for wizards and sorcerers. They have spells that deal negative energy damage.




I think many can benefit from it. Especially if harm is a favourite attack spell around.

But as soon as the enemy catches on, you should kill the cleric really really fast. As soon as he breaks out his mass heal on you...


----------



## Voadam (Feb 23, 2004)

Harlock said:
			
		

> I like the sound of that, Eric.  Although, I am not quite sure how you make undead look beautiful...




Seductive Vampiresses. Expect them to be, well, vamping.

Banshees in gauzy nightgowns, expect their long hair to be blowing in ghostly wind.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Feb 23, 2004)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Banshees in gauzy nightgowns, expect their long hair to be blowing in ghostly wind.




That would be a trophy girlfriend. And you'd want to keep her happy - there could be a row. Shouting at each other could be involved....


----------



## Pants (Feb 23, 2004)

ohGr said:
			
		

> WotC's imperfect comprehension of latin aside, i'm willing to give them all kinds of credit for not going with the obvious-and rather cliche, IMHO-title of Necronomicon for this book.



How about _Undeadonomoicon_


----------



## Len (Feb 23, 2004)

Harlock said:
			
		

> I like the sound of that, Eric.  Although, I am not quite sure how you make undead look beautiful...



http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0320691/Ss/0320691/mcbrideteaser.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0320691


----------



## Chronosome (Feb 23, 2004)

Coooool. 

I'm looking forward to this one.  I wonder if there'll be a lot of stuff updated from the Ravenloft _Van Richten's_ guides.


----------



## Aaron L (Feb 23, 2004)

Excellent.  Too bad it's probably going to be a long wait for it, I just made a cleric of Wee Jas for Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.


----------



## The_Universe (Feb 23, 2004)

This is awesome.  I get a lot of use out of my Draconomicon, and I'd love to have a similar book for Undead.  My game has an evil lichking whose hordes of undead minions need an update!  Huzzah WotC!


----------



## jgsugden (Feb 23, 2004)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> I wonder how they call the last book. "Complete Expert"?



Actuaslly, I think I heard that it will be called the Complete Lee Emp Teewal Eet.


----------



## johnsemlak (Feb 23, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I think that might be a typo, though -- the other scoop thread that was just closed reported it as _Librim Mortis_.  Of course, my Latin's really sucky, so I don't know if that's right or not.  If only they were Russian cases!



 That would be _Kniga Smerti_.  Doesn't sound as good as Liber Mortis.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 23, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> That would be _Kniga Smerti_.  Doesn't sound as good as Liber Mortis.



All I mean is that I know the Russian cases better than I do the Latin ones!  I agree that Kniga Smerti doesn't sound particularly menacing, as a Book of the Undead should.


----------



## Hammer of the Circle (Feb 23, 2004)

So what do we think -- is this going to be a big, beautiful book along the lines of Draconomicon?  What do you think should be in there?


*Templates,templates,templates.
*It might be interesting to get a little info on what is actually supposed to be happening to a creature when it becomes undead (i.e. the soul, an anima, the concious mind).  
*Why is a paladin who becomes a spectre just as nasty as a murderous cleric who becomes one too?
*And what does a wight _do_ with itself in it's spare time?  Does it "sleep"?  Does it hunt; and wouldn't that make it an uncontrollable menace?  Does it plot; in which case what semblance of it's previous mind (and alignment) does it posess.

It's all good to have simply the monsters in the MM.  The PC's don't usually stop to interview the undead or investigate the how and the why of their becoming.  If they're going to dedicate a book to undeath, a little more than the nuts and bolts might be interesting.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Feb 23, 2004)

Now we just need a Big Book of Witches called Maleus Mal...uh, forget about it.


----------



## Orius (Feb 23, 2004)

kilamanjaro said:
			
		

> I'll be very surprised if this one doesn't have updated versions of the Pale Master and True Necromancer from Tome and Blood in it.






			
				Chronosome said:
			
		

> I wonder if there'll be a lot of stuff updated from the Ravenloft Van Richten's guides.




There's not only those sources, but stuff like _Ghostwalk_, _Requiem_?, and _The Complete Book of Necromencers_.  Plus whatever new stuff they throw in there.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 23, 2004)

Actually, a big book of fey would be REALLY interesting, since I think they're one of the most underrrated monster categories around.  Plus, there's high potential for beauty, magic, and witchery in such a tome....

Librim Mortis sounds intriguing...I've gotten a lot of use out of the Draconomicon, so I'll probably pick this up....

--Still Frustrated about the lack of Blazewing Ace Spikey.


----------



## Gez (Feb 23, 2004)

The Lichonomicon would have been a fun title.

Filthy, it's the Maleus Maleficarum. I have to say, it's a cheesy name. I translate it as "The Icky-Book of Icky-Bad Naughtiness".

About beautiful undead, I know a few pics of ghosts that would qualify; but if Eric's grandma was shocked by the superbowl, she would not appreciate those either, so I'll respect American prudishness and not link them.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Feb 23, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> Actuaslly, I think I heard that it will be called the Complete Lee Emp Teewal Eet.




Come again?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2004)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> Come again?




Play with the grouping.

Complete Lee;  Emp Tee; wal Eet.

-Hyp.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Feb 23, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Play with the grouping.
> 
> Complete Lee;  Emp Tee; wal Eet.
> 
> -Hyp.




Right. I wasn't including the Complete, and the "eet" threw me off. Also, I somehow tried to see every syllable as a single letter, and even tried anagram. Sometimes the answer's just too easy....


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Feb 23, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> Very good latin lesson   Brings back memories.
> 
> I personally would argue with you where you say we have a genitive case in English.  I think we have a possesive case.  We only use possesive forms to show, well, possetion.  The Genitive case (in Latin and other langauges like Russian) has uses besides possession.




And, FWIW, those pronouns are actually in the dative case, though for many of those pronouns, the dative and accusative were identical in old English.

Wizards nomen rectum scripsit, sed non totum nomen. Nomen plenum ei est:

LIBRIS MORTIS PECVNIAM TVAM SVMIMVS

Thus, it is an ablative of means, the old Indo-European instrumental case use of the ablative.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2004)

Lord Rasputin said:
			
		

> LIBRIS MORTIS PECVNIAM TVAM SVMIMVS






-Hyp.


----------



## Olive (Feb 23, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Actually, a big book of fey would be REALLY interesting, since I think they're one of the most underrrated monster categories around.  Plus, there's high potential for beauty, magic, and witchery in such a tome...




It would eb awesome, but I suspect that the market for fey is a little more limmited than the market for undead and dragons. [sigh]


----------



## Saeviomagy (Feb 23, 2004)

Len said:
			
		

> http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0320691/Ss/0320691/mcbrideteaser.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0320691



I dunno if you could call that chick on the left attractive...

Oh, wait. You meant the picture for the movie...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> I dunno if you could call that chick on the left attractive...




I'm confused.  Each time I click the link, it comes up with Charlize Theron on the left...

Which page are you getting?

-Hyp.


----------



## Len (Feb 23, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm confused.  Each time I click the link, it comes up with Charlize Theron on the left...
> 
> Which page are you getting?
> 
> -Hyp.



 Well it is a relatively unattractive picture of Theron IMO. But I don't think she's undead. I did in fact mean the movie poster.


----------



## Simplicity (Feb 23, 2004)

Everyone is so fixated on the "book".  
Almost no one mentioned the "dead".

I don't think we want a book of the dead...  
I'd much rather have a book of the UNdead.

Libris Mortis: Books of Death.
Liber Mortis: Book of Death.
Liber Mortuorum: Book of the Dead.
Liber Non Mortis : Book of the Undeath.
Liber Non Mortuorum : Book of the Undead.


----------



## Len (Feb 23, 2004)

That sounds more like "not dead" than "undead". Is there a Latin word for undead? (Hypersmurf? Rasputin?) Or do you end up with something like "Book of Those Who Are Sort Of Dead But Not Really"?


----------



## Nighthawk (Feb 24, 2004)

Well, I am keen on this book, especially since I am quite impressed with the Draconomicon. Here's hoping for the high quality to continue.


----------



## tarchon (Feb 24, 2004)

Len said:
			
		

> That sounds more like "not dead" than "undead". Is there a Latin word for undead? (Hypersmurf? Rasputin?) Or do you end up with something like "Book of Those Who Are Sort Of Dead But Not Really"?



<i>Immortalis</I> unfortunately means soemthing else already, though I suppose <i>immortuus</i> wouldn't be that ambiguous.  The word in the modern sense was coined in the 19th century, so there isnt much historical Latin usage to go on.  "Sort of dead but not really" is <i>quasi-mortuus</i>, but <i>Liber Quasi-Mortuorum</i> doesn't doesn't ring off the ear.


----------



## Simplicity (Feb 24, 2004)

Len said:
			
		

> That sounds more like "not dead" than "undead". Is there a Latin word for undead? (Hypersmurf? Rasputin?) Or do you end up with something like "Book of Those Who Are Sort Of Dead But Not Really"?




Well, "un-" does mean not...
"undead" means "not dead."

I don't know of any word for undead.  
There's a word for ghosts: "phasma".
It's not really appropriate.

"lemures" is another, but that gets confusing REAL fast.
"liber lemuris" sounds like a book of monkeys to me,
and if it's not that, then maybe it's a book of crappy devils.
(I'm not even sure what the genitive of lemures is... 
It's a weird word, and it's been a while).


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 24, 2004)

The Healed by negative energy feat- Do you still suffer from negative levels? 

I don't think thats too good of a PC feat unless your group only has people willing to play a cleric if said cleric is evil. Good  clerics had a decidely unfair advantage in the healing department in live PC groups thanks to swapping spells to heal. [In D&D CAUSING damage is cheaper than healing it on the most part.]


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 24, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Actually, a big book of fey would be REALLY interesting, since I think they're one of the most underrrated monster categories around.  Plus, there's high potential for beauty, magic, and witchery in such a tome....




In a high action game where players get save and negate against every effect fae tend to have, devoting a book to then seems kinda iffy.

Plus a D6 hit die and not being well known for a great con score doesn't help.


A Plant and Fae book might work.


----------



## Nightfall (Feb 24, 2004)

If there are gods mentioned, Orcus better get a mention. He's been with undead since 1st edition and deserves the mention.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 24, 2004)

Just for semantics sake, Undead means the oppisite of dead. If Undead referred to anything not dead, those polyhedral dice we all cherish would all be d12s. Since the exact oppisite of 'the dead' is 'the living' it appears 'Undead' must be a false moniker. Since undead are in fact dead, at least in the biological sense, despite any apparent movement or sense of reason, I don't take issue with The Book of the Dead as it were. Gee...Aren't semantics fun! Of course Book of the Damned might be a better title if we were to take a page out of Ann Rice's Vampire Chronicles. Of course that would start arguements over the state of an undead creature's soul which could be fun.


----------



## Turjan (Feb 24, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> Filthy, it's the Maleus Maleficarum. I have to say, it's a cheesy name. I translate it as "The Icky-Book of Icky-Bad Naughtiness".



At least this take on the "Mal*l*eus Maleficarum" (Hammer of the [female] evildoers) would be as bad latin as "Libris Mortis" !


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Feb 24, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> If there are gods mentioned, Orcus better get a mention. He's been with undead since 1st edition and deserves the mention.




Should be mentioned, Orcus. As the demon lord he his  

But since he has allegedly created the buggers, he should get mentioned in any case. And I think he should write the forword.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Feb 24, 2004)

Campbell said:
			
		

> Just for semantics sake, Undead means the oppisite of dead. If Undead referred to anything not dead, those polyhedral dice we all cherish would all be d12s. Since the exact oppisite of 'the dead' is 'the living' it appears 'Undead' must be a false moniker. Since undead are in fact dead, at least in the biological sense, despite any apparent movement or sense of reason, I don't take issue with The Book of the Dead as it were.




Strapping on "not" onto something doesn't necessarily make something into an exact opposite. If I say I'm not going to the shops today, it doesn't mean that I'm going to run away from the shops.

If the situation is binary, then not does in fact mean the opposite. However in D&D, there are more than 2 states of being. There is, in fact, living, dead, and something which is like dead, but isn't. It's alternately called being unliving or undead, which is a fairly accurate description of it.

I'd say that "not dead" would be a pretty good approximation for it.


----------



## tarchon (Feb 24, 2004)

Campbell said:
			
		

> Just for semantics sake, Undead means the oppisite of dead. If Undead referred to anything not dead, those polyhedral dice we all cherish would all be d12s.



Way back, it did mean "alive," usually with the connotation of "barely alive," but Bram Stoker reinvented it after a long period of disuse.  My personal theory is that he was using it as what he thought was a calque (literal translation) of nosferatu, though he was pretty much off base with it.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Feb 24, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> At least this take on the "Mal*l*eus Maleficarum" (Hammer of the [female] evildoers) would be as bad latin as "Libris Mortis" !




The "misspelling" was on purpose, plus I haven't looked at/read the book in a long while...memory is weak, I'm zombie-safe, no nutrition up here.


----------



## johnnype (Feb 24, 2004)

I for one hope they include a Necromancer base class. IMO it is the one focus that has yet to see a good set of rules. Sure we have the Cleric and or Wizard that can focus on necromantic spells or one of the many of prestige classes published so far that try to narrow the focus even more. I don't know about anyone else but I don't see any of those choices as sufficient. So far Green Ronin has come the closest with the class in  *Secret College of Necromancy* but that class was a bit wonky. 

Other than that I'm looking forward to this book. I suspect they will use templates to describe most of the monsters to give it the flexibility that's become so common in D20 supplements these days. Good move, Now if we could just get a book about lycanthropes...


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm confused.  Each time I click the link, it comes up with Charlize Theron on the left...
> 
> Which page are you getting?



Yep, with Kate Beckinsale in the center.  Either way, what's the problem?  I can look at either quite happily.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 24, 2004)

Len said:
			
		

> Well it is a relatively unattractive picture of Theron IMO.




"Relatively", of course, being the key word.

Like a relatively pretty picture of Winston Churchill, or a relatively short picture of Kareem Abdul-Jabar.

-Hyp.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Feb 24, 2004)

sometimes in translations words get transposed so could the title be "The Dead Book"


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 24, 2004)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> sometimes in translations words get transposed so could the title be "The Dead Book"




That would be _liber mortuus_.

-Hyp.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Feb 24, 2004)

Len said:
			
		

> That sounds more like "not dead" than "undead". Is there a Latin word for undead? (Hypersmurf? Rasputin?) Or do you end up with something like "Book of Those Who Are Sort Of Dead But Not Really"?




Mortuus -- dead (ppa of mori, to die)
In -- negating prefix

in + mortuus > immortuus

I suppose with D&D undead, this should be neuter. My Latin dictionary gives the same word as to die in, to die into, to get sick over, with the reason for this death or destination taking the dative. I cannot see how anyone would ever use this even once in his life, so the Ludus Domini Rasputinis changes it to its new meaning, at least for use in fantasy roleplaying.


----------



## Allanon (Feb 24, 2004)

On the topic of the name we can only hope that WotC reads this and decides to change the name. I'd buy the book regardless but somehow I'd be more inclined the like it if the name felt... wel right . And to me either Liber Immortuus or Liber Mortuorum sound better than Libris Mortis .


----------



## RangerWickett (Feb 24, 2004)

Why couldn't they have just called it, "The Book of the Dead," instead of trying to rip off Ambient, Inc.'s Librum Equitis line?  *grin*

I mean, "The Book of the Dead" sounds appropriately creepy, and it matches up with the movie The Mummy.


----------



## Dirigible (Feb 24, 2004)

Maybe they should do a book for PCs - Liber Morituri  ?


----------



## Gez (Feb 24, 2004)

What about Living Dead, rather than Dead or Undead?

In WotC's latin, it would be Libris Vivimortis.


----------



## fourmyle (Feb 24, 2004)

Looking at the whole title of book, which I believe is:

Libris Mortis: The Book of the Undead

It makes pretty good sense that Libris is using its case to assume the pronoun 'ex' and as such, means 'From the Books' allowing the title to make perfect sense...

From the Books of Death: The Book of the Undead

Yeah?


----------



## tarchon (Feb 24, 2004)

fourmyle said:
			
		

> Looking at the whole title of book, which I believe is:
> 
> Libris Mortis: The Book of the Undead
> 
> ...



Nah, no amount of hopeful apologetics can make sense out of it. 
The way Latin works, the prepositon tells you why the noun has that ablative case marking.  The lack of the preposition actually indicates what the grammatical function is, so dropping it distinctly changes the meaning.  Usually if you see a bare ablative like that on a generic noun, it's some kind of instrumental, so the default interpretation is "with books" or "with books being present" or "by books" or something like that.  The ablative usually only indicates fromness (strangely enough) if you have one of the "from" prepositions, like ex, de, or ab.


----------



## AdvntrGuy (Feb 24, 2004)

*it just sounds good...*

As much as I think it would be cool for the title to make sense in latin as well, the full title still sounds good.  

In my current game, I'm translating all the cleric spell names into latin by just looking at a dictionary with no consideration for grammatical accuracy.    I use these as my verbal component when I'm casting a spell and the gang loves it, even the DM who actually knows latin.  Sometimes he just laughs because it's so bad.  When I can find the exact word, or I don't like the sound of the word, I just look for another that sounds good to me.   

Let's have fun out there...

AG


----------



## X-Marks! (Mar 6, 2004)

*Fey, not Foul*

Personally, I've always seen that a truly beautifully realized (Draconomican-esque) Book of the Fey would be an excellent addition to the game.  Considering the depth of the historical/mythological source material out there, there's plenty to draw upon.  Every time I look through a book like "Good Faeries, Bad Faeries" or the various books by Brian Froud, I always think to myself "Man, I wish we had stats and abilities for these guys."  I mean some are just so alien-like!  I was very pleased to see the boost to the field that the FF brought to the fey, which really just made me want more info, not less.

However, all that being said, I doubt that WotC's going to be giving me that book anytime soon.  I recall reading an interview with one of the Designers (wish I could recall the source -- probably re: Ghostwalk's history) where they said that at one point they were all asked to submit their best ideas for new projects for the next few years.  And, it wasn't long after that that "Fey Feature" showed up on the website as a regular column, so I assume the project pitch just sort of got an amber-light, instead of a green-light.  

I think it's a wonderful idea and column -- the two authors do a great job of adding extra ideas, and making cool historical and artistic references.  I just want it all put together in a more cohesive, collectively useful format ... with gloriously colourful, original artwork.  

Sigh, just faerie-dust dreams  perchance.  ~ALX~


----------



## BOZ (Mar 6, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> _libris_ is the ablative or dative plural of _liber_, a book.
> 
> _mortis_ is the genitive singular of _mors_, death.
> 
> ...




that reminds me of that scene from Life of Brian where he's writing on the wall...


----------



## Wolffenjugend (Mar 6, 2004)

Allanon said:
			
		

> On the topic of the name we can only hope that WotC reads this and decides to change the name. I'd buy the book regardless but somehow I'd be more inclined the like it if the name felt... wel right . And to me either Liber Immortuus or Liber Mortuorum sound better than Libris Mortis .




But Libris Mortis has a much better ring to it and, really, that's all that matters. At least from a marketing perspective (and WotC is a business, afterall). The VAST majority of gamers don't read latin and could care less if the title isn't 100% accurate.


----------



## spunky_mutters (Mar 6, 2004)

At least they used latin. It is, after all, a dead language.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Mar 6, 2004)

spunky_mutters said:
			
		

> At least they used latin. It is, after all, a dead language.



But the book is about *un*dead!


----------



## Gez (Mar 7, 2004)

They should use an undead language, then. Maybe Hebrew -- wasn't it a dead language before the creation of the state of Israel, and its adoption as the official language?


----------



## Zappo (Mar 7, 2004)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> The undead suck at latin - it's, after all a dead language, not an undead one.



Back in mid school I used to describe latin as an undead language, seeing as it's extensively taught despite having been dead for centuries.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 7, 2004)

Hammer of the Circle said:
			
		

> *It might be interesting to get a little info on what is actually supposed to be happening to a creature when it becomes undead (i.e. the soul, an anima, the concious mind).




Manual of the planes 3.0 indicates that the souls of those who become udead do not go to the afterlife at death, even when a DM customizes the cosmology.

In the petioniner entry it states the original souls MAY go to the afterlife.


----------



## DM_Matt (Mar 8, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> They should use an undead language, then. Maybe Hebrew -- wasn't it a dead language before the creation of the state of Israel, and its adoption as the official language?




Sort of.  It was always preserved for use in prayer and in reading holy books, but until the 19th century is was (in Europe at least) considered a holy language only to be used for religious purposes, with Jews speaking Yiddish and/or the language of the country they lived in as their main spoken language.  Then a Lithuanian named Eliezer Ben-Yehuda decided to update Hebrew for modern use and began a movement to speak it.  His intent was to create a universal language that Jewsw throughought europe could speak.  His actions came right on the heels of the early Zionist movement, and he  moved to what would eventually be caled Israel, where his language was both needed (since Jews in Israel came from so many different places) and ideologically appropriate (Since the point of the Zionist movement was to return to their ancient homeland, why not their ancient language too?), it cought on and became one of the official languages there (Arabic is also an official language of Israel).


----------



## tarchon (Mar 8, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> They should use an undead language, then. Maybe Hebrew -- wasn't it a dead language before the creation of the state of Israel, and its adoption as the official language?



I was going to say that, but I thought better of it.  "Cornish" is probably less likely to offend people .


----------



## EricNoah (Mar 9, 2004)

Update:

The new issue of Dragon confirms that this book is coming out in October 2004, and it will be a Draconomicon-style book for undead.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Mar 9, 2004)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Update:
> 
> The new issue of Dragon confirms that this book is coming out in October 2004, and it will be a Draconomicon-style book for undead.




I saw that, hopefully it will be as pretty as the Draco book, as pretty as the shambling dead can be.


----------



## ivocaliban (Mar 20, 2004)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> Could be the second best thing after the Necrotelecomnicon (which tells you how to call the dead)




What about the Necrotelemarketercomnicon? In which the dead call _you_ offering a free haunting if you'll only invest in pristine ocean-front property conveniently located in the Fugue Plane?


----------



## anointedshroud (Apr 16, 2007)

Okay, I don't know if this is way too late.  It's been several years, but I stumbled upon this, and had to respond, having taken four years of Latin, and owning the book.  I don't believe it's a typo or mistranslation at all, and if my memory serves me correct, the book addresses it.  Anyway, it's definitely the ablative case with an understood "a / ab" or "e / ex" preposition.  This is very common in Latin poetry, and it translates as "From the Books of the Dead."  I hope this helps some people, and I wish I had been a member of the forums during the time of the discussion.


----------



## GAAAHHH (Apr 16, 2007)

Thread Necromancy!!!  How appropriate is that?


----------



## Echohawk (Apr 16, 2007)

There's something delightfully ironic about this particular thread being brought back to life


----------



## Le Noir Faineant (Apr 16, 2007)

I'd say it' still an error, especially since incorrect latin has been one of D&D'S trademarks since the very beginnings of gaming...

IF it makes sense, it's surely pure coincidence.


----------



## Tiberius (Apr 16, 2007)

Best not to worry about it. Bad Latin seems pretty common in games, and it's far easier to go with it than try to make it work.

Also, obviously someone's been taking levels in Dread Thread Necromancer.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 16, 2007)

Echohawk said:
			
		

> There's something delightfully ironic about this particular thread being brought back to life




Or, back to unlife, since it still smells funny.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 16, 2007)

GAAAHHH said:
			
		

> Thread Necromancy!!!  How appropriate is that?




Well played!


----------



## Agamon (Apr 16, 2007)

Wow.  Best first post EVAR!


----------



## Gez (Apr 16, 2007)

Teh Funney!


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Apr 16, 2007)

GAAAHHH said:
			
		

> Thread Necromancy!!!  How appropriate is that?




Even more appropriate that the second poster after the neacromancer is named GAAAHHH...

Has "BRAAAAINS" posted yet?


----------



## Wayside (Apr 17, 2007)

anointedshroud said:
			
		

> Okay, I don't know if this is way too late.  It's been several years, but I stumbled upon this, and had to respond, having taken four years of Latin, and owning the book.  I don't believe it's a typo or mistranslation at all, and if my memory serves me correct, the book addresses it.  Anyway, it's definitely the ablative case with an understood "a / ab" or "e / ex" preposition.  This is very common in Latin poetry, and it translates as "From the Books of the Dead."  I hope this helps some people, and I wish I had been a member of the forums during the time of the discussion.



You would want the adjective _mortuus _ (albeit substantively used), not the noun _mors _ (so _libris mortuis_, not _libris mortis_), but yeah, it's close enough that you could probably find something similar in an actual text were you inclined to look.


----------



## Anti-Sean (Apr 17, 2007)

Wayside said:
			
		

> You would want the adjective _mortuus _ (albeit substantively used), not the noun _mors _ (so _libris mortuis_, not _libris mortis_), but yeah, it's close enough that you could probably find something similar in an actual text were you inclined to look.



Wayside has the right of it here, although shouldn't it be the genitive plural _mortuorum_ to denote possession, rather than the ablative plural?


----------



## Len (Apr 17, 2007)

Thanks guys for updating us on the changes to Latin grammar in the last 3 years.


----------



## Kurashu (Apr 17, 2007)

I am posting in a legendary thread.

On a side note, I also own Libris Mortis. It's a great book. Between Libris Mortis, Heroes of Horror, and some homebrew stuff, undead and necromancy centered characters have received a boost all around. However, I wouldn't rate Libris Mortis' beauty factor higher than the Draconomic, which I just love to look at despite hardly using dragons in my game. Lords of Madness is alright too.

If I ever need to run an undead half-dragon Neogi, I'll have all the tools though.


However, I'm still waiting on "Der Wälzer riesigen Leute: The Book of Giants".


----------



## Wayside (Apr 17, 2007)

Anti-Sean said:
			
		

> Wayside has the right of it here, although shouldn't it be the genitive plural _mortuorum_ to denote possession, rather than the ablative plural?



You're absolutely right. It's cool how I noted that the adjective needed to be used substantively, then proceeded to put it into agreement with a noun _anyway  _ . The genitive in this case is descriptive though, not possessive.

Now that I think about it, I'd bet that there's precedent for using _mortuus_ collectively in the singular. That would give you a way around the sometimes dissonant (to English-speaking ears at least) Latin plurals with _libris mortui_.


----------

