Builder Haunts?

[oDDity]

Are we just using the same model as the Builder guard, but with a skull for a face like they did in Thief, or are you thinking of doing some specific artwork.

Haunts are supposed to be undead Hammers/Builders, so it makes sense they'd be wearing the same gear.

I could give him a skull face and hands, make the armour old and rusted wth holes, and tattered cloth.

Are they basically skeletons wearing armour, So if I tatter the leg cloth, you can see the leg bones inside?

Is it also true that the hammer priests become ghosts and not haunts?

There's a very simple effect you can do in doom to make charcaters look ghosly - just add the word transparent in the shader. I suppose we'd need some sort of 'blue glowie' effect on top of that.

[sparhawk]

I think making them like this would be a good approach. Battered clothing and basically a rotten corpse beneath the cloth.

[oDDity]

A rotten corpse would make them zombies then. I think they are just bare bones - they are too old to have any flesh on them.

Also I think our haunts should be immue to weapons except fire arrows, holy water and explosive mines.

[sparhawk]

A rotten corpse would make them zombies then. I think they are just bare bones - they are too old to have any flesh on them.

 

How do you know how old they are? Somehow I liked that image that Doc_Brown was using. Maybe the models can reflect that a bit. IMO the idea how they are coming to be Haunts is not so bad. COuld aslo be a good cutscene if Pathos includes this in his story somehow.

 

The guilty party has chains wrapped around their torso, chains blessed with an enchantment that traps soul in body of whoever is bound in them. The condemned is then cast into a body of water, drowning from the weight. With the soul unable to leave the body, they rise again and walk out of the water. The process drives them mad, inflicting them with the desire to make any living being they see suffer as they have suffered.

 

 

Also I think our haunts should be immue to weapons except fire arrows, holy water and explosive mines.

 

That's fine for me. No flashmines? I never used them anyway because I didn't knew this until T3, but I guess people might be used to this. So the question is why to change that. At least for Zombies hurting them with daylight seems to be common.

[Springheel]

I never really understood the justification for haunts. If they are undead builders, why are they using swords? Where do they get them?

 

I agree with you, oDDity, that they should be fairly skeletal. We could always say that they are the corpses of ancient builders, before the hammer became the traditional weapon. So their armour should be similar but not identical. That will also free up FM authors to use them in other environments.

 

I'm thinking of haunts as the elite guards of the undead, so I'm all for making them harder to kill.

[New Horizon]

I never really understood the justification for haunts. If they are undead builders, why are they using swords? Where do they get them?

Not sure where they get the swords, but I would say from hell. The hammer is a holy symbol so they are no longer able to wield it.

[sparhawk]

That's a good idea. Seems like a zombie using a holy cross to fight with.

[Springheel]

Maybe they should use upside down hammers then.

[pakmannen]

You could kill them in Thief 1 by throwing hammers at them. At least I think you could.

[pakmannen]

But then of course they went and ruined that by making them wield hammers in Thief 2. D'oh.

[sparhawk]

Maybe they should use upside down hammers then.

:lol:

[oDDity]

Haunts donj't make sense from many angles, but then the whole idea of undead is nonsensical anyway, so we shouldn't try to think it out logically.

Chains are good because then the chain rattle SFX make sense. A few bits of broken, rusted chain hanging round their neck or waist would be good.

Realistically, they wouldn't be able to wear any armour if they're skeletons, since their gloves, boot, and chainmail greaves would fall off, so what they'd look like is a skeleton with body armour, a tattered skirt and upper arm cloth, and chains hanging around them.

[New Horizon]

Haunts donj't make sense from many angles, but then the whole idea of undead is nonsensical anyway, so we shouldn't try to think it out logically.

Chains are good because then the chain rattle SFX make sense. A few bits of broken, rusted chain hanging round their neck or waist would be good.

Realistically, they wouldn't be able to wear any armour if they're skeletons, since their gloves, boot, and chainmail greaves would fall off, so what they'd look like is a skeleton with body armour, a tattered skirt and upper arm cloth, and chains hanging around them.

I quite like that image.

[god_is_my_goldfish]

Yeah, i did do a simple concept, though only the sjull area actually ended up looking any good. Lemme find it.

 

here it is

 

 

I like the way you would describe them though, it would be much more fitting than the way they were in thief, which was just a hammerite body with a different face.

Edited January 13, 2005 by god_is_my_goldfish

[Springheel]

Haunts donj't make sense from many angles, but then the whole idea of undead is nonsensical anyway, so we shouldn't try to think it out logically.

 

We certainly *could* justify them logically if we wanted to, but it's pointless other than from a campaign point of view, I agree.

 

Is it possible to create models with interchangeable weapons? That way FM authors can give them hammers or swords as they choose.

 

One suggestion, just for effect...what if all the 'hammer' symbols have been scratched off the Haunt's armor? As if they died in disgrace and had all holy symbols removed or destroyed before burial. Burying them with a rusty sword could be some kind of symbol of dishonour (so that they can only present a rusted tool to the Master Builder when they arrive in the Afterlife, or something).

[god_is_my_goldfish]

I like that, possibly even have them have broken swords. A sign of real disgrace.

[_Atti_]

"which was just a hammerite body with a different face. "

 

i think it is that that made them frightenning..and of course the sounds beeing heard around it that chain rattling was freaky..btw an idea.. we could add the source of that chain rattling:)

[_Atti_]

"One suggestion, just for effect...what if all the 'hammer' symbols have been scratched off the Haunt's armor? As if they died in disgrace and had all holy symbols removed or destroyed before burial. Burying them with a rusty sword could be some kind of symbol of dishonour (so that they can only present a rusted tool to the Master Builder when they arrive in the Afterlife, or something)."

i like that idea a lot

[Domarius]

...but then the whole idea of undead is nonsensical anyway, so we shouldn't try to think it out logically.

The world that J.R.R Tolkien created is nonsensical, yet it has a detailed history that affects the details in the story that was set. Elves have a whole language, cultures have customs, etc.

 

We certainly *could* justify them logically if we wanted to, but it's pointless other than from a campaign point of view, I agree.

 

But it can affect the details - how they look, how they fight, what weapon they use. And then you can read about the details in the game.

 

It helps you "beleive" in the fantasy world that is being created around you.

[oDDity]

No amount of logic explains how skeletons can walk around propelled by evil sprirts. Don't even bother trying. In the end the basic principle is just silly. One idea is as good as another when they're all ridiculous.

[sparhawk]

No amount of logic explains how skeletons can walk around propelled by evil sprirts.

That is true for our world. But if we create a new universe, then it should be logical from that Universe's point of view, and it should be logical in that universe.

 

So it makes sense to expalin how they fit in the world that we try to create, but it doesn't make sense to try to exaplain how they would work in our world.

[oDDity]

Sure we can explain why they look the way they look, but not how the magic works that makes them move.

[Springheel]

You're right, we don't have to, which is lucky for us. Just like we don't have to explain exactly how the boilerbots move, or think, or process visual stimuli. We can say, "They've mechanical" and pretty much leave it at that.

 

For our *campaign*, we may want to explain some of these things in more detail. But even that may not be necessary. LGS never explained why Haunts are the way they are, and no one had a problem with it. We don't have to be Tolkien.

[Domarius]

I'd like to say that reading about the workings of various things in the Thief world (mechanist documentation, magical lore) really really helped me become absorbed in the world of Thief. And I'd look at the boiler bot or whatever, in a new way.

 

I just want to say that its worth taking a "slightly logical" approach. Like sparhawk said, "logical within the confines of our fantasy world".

 

Like I said, no need to go all out and explain every detail of magic or something (what curse was involved, what ingredients were used) but on the other end of the scale, I don't think it's good to take a "It's fantasy, so it doesn't matter what crap we think up" approach.

[Springheel]

I agree, although we don't really need to do that for the toolkit as much as the campaign.