PDA

View Full Version : Non-Evil Necromancy



ThinkMinty
2015-10-24, 05:40 AM
I'm wondering what makes for a good-aligned Necromancer possible. This isn't specific to any one system, although I personally dislike the notion that Necromancy is somehow more evil than Enchantment/Mind Control is as far as D&D/Pathfinder is concerned.

Now, beforehand, for the sake of the kinds of discussion I'm looking for, I'll throw out some basic assumptions that predicate the discussion.

1. Reanimation in-and-of-itself, for the sake of discussion, is not evil.
2. Religious (real or fictional) objections are not what's being discussed. If you can ground the same objection in secular philosophy, free free to make it. This is a forum heuristic anyway, it just bears overt mentioning in the context of morality and zombification.
3. Controlling or enslaving the undead is a separate issue from creating them, and is very much something I'd like to hear thoughts about.
4. The original soul/essence of the reanimated being returns to the corpse under normal conditions, although mix-and-match necromancy is possible but not necessarily more or less difficult.
5. All undead created have the same basic nature they did when alive, although their memories of life are somewhat fuzzy, especially towards the time of their passing. No undead can recall the actual moment of death, but some may remember the process of dying if it took more than a few minutes.
6. None of the undead have any memories of an afterlife regardless of your opinion as to whether one exists or not.
7. All undead created retain the same mental faculties they had at the prime of their lived lifespan, and this will not deteriorate or advance as time goes by. Sapient individuals remain sapient, sentient individuals remain sentient.
Examples:

A "teenaged" undead has the mind of a teenager, and will continue to have an adolescent mind centuries down the line.
An "old man" undead who had dementia in later years of life no longer has dementia.
An undead dog, steed, or other animal retains any training it received in life.

8. The undead form new memories just like anyone else.
9. As far as capacities go, an undead being has as much agency as a living person does. Whether or not undead people are people is up to your opinion. I like to think they are, as far as this thread is concerned, but mileage will vary.


So, thoughts on good-aligned necromancy? Do you still think it's impossible? What kind of stuff would separate the good from the bad from the neutral?



EDIT: The bar I'm setting is more along the lines of being as morally relative as a Fireball or a Charm Person, rather than needing to be entirely above reproach in all circumstances.

Millstone85
2015-10-24, 07:03 AM
What would be, in this specific context, the difference between undeath and being brought back to life with everlasting youth?

Comet
2015-10-24, 07:05 AM
This kind of undeath where you retain full agency and mental presence is basically the same as uploading someone's mind into a robot body.

New and weird and sometimes uncomfortable, yes, but still a greatly expanded lifespan. It's easy to argue for semi-immortality.

Now if you do that against someone's will and the body they end up in isn't to their liking, then you might have a problem. I assume the dead person's body retains the condition it was in upon death, which might in some cases be a horrifying thing to inhabit. Especially if your mind is still sharp and present.

ThinkMinty
2015-10-24, 07:10 AM
What would be, in this specific context, the difference between undeath and being brought back to life with everlasting youth?

How you eat, how healing magic works on you, general differences between life and undeath.

Millstone85
2015-10-24, 07:28 AM
This kind of undeath where you retain full agency and mental presence is basically the same as uploading someone's mind into a robot body.Possibly better in that you do not have to deal with the existential distress of being a duplicate.


I assume the dead person's body retains the condition it was in upon death, which might in some cases be a horrifying thing to inhabit. Especially if your mind is still sharp and present.That's also my default assumption when I hear "undead", unless vampires are involved. Speaking of which...


How you eat, how healing magic works on you, general differences between life and undeath.So, how do you eat? Do you thirst for the blood / life force of your former species?

ThinkMinty
2015-10-24, 07:48 AM
Possibly better in that you do not have to deal with the existential distress of being a duplicate.

Yup. Being dead is easier to handle than the idea of being fake.


That's also my default assumption when I hear "undead", unless vampires are involved. Speaking of which...

Depends on how you got reanimated. A some processes would repair you to a reasonable facsimile of function, others literally just rip you out of the grave as-is. The rotting stops, and there's stuff to help you deal with and/or reverse it, though.


So, how do you eat? Do you thirst for the blood / life force of your former species?

Depends on the kind of undead you are. Skeletons just need to compulsively chew on things sometimes, ghouls need meat, vampires need blood, etc.

Millstone85
2015-10-24, 08:52 AM
The thing with undeath is that it is supposed to be a faulty immortality. Maybe your moral compass is broken, or you are in constant pain, or you can only survive by taking other people's lives, or... There is a catch somewhere and it is horrible.

This is often used to deliver some "any form of immortality would be bad" moral. But since the rules are made up for start to finish, it is not really convincing.

When a story does not want immortality to be so faulty, the word "undeath" will likely not show up at all. Either that or ghouls and vampires are now decent and happy people who just look a little funny. Maybe they can survive on animal meat and blood or maybe they can even be vegans. But such "undeath" is a joke.

So my idea for a good aligned necromancer would be as follows. They see undeath as an unsatisfying prototype for the form of immortality they are trying to obtain for themselves and others. Many call their quest delusional and reckless, which would be true in most settings but not necessarily in this one. And they only create sapient undead with the informed consent of the souls.

ThinkMinty
2015-10-24, 08:58 AM
The thing with undeath is that it is supposed to be a faulty immortality. Maybe your moral compass is broken, or you are in constant pain, or you can only survive by taking other people's lives, or... There is a catch somewhere and it is horrible.

This is often used to deliver some "any form of immortality would be bad" moral. But since the rules are made up for start to finish, it is not really convincing.

When a story does not want immortality to be so faulty, the word "undeath" will likely not show up at all. Either that or ghouls and vampires are now decent and happy people who just look a little funny. Maybe they can survive on animal meat and blood or maybe they can even be vegans. But such "undeath" is a joke.

So my idea for a good aligned necromancer would be as follows. They see undeath as an unsatisfying prototype for the form of immortality they are trying to obtain for themselves and others. Many call their quest delusional and reckless, which would be true in most settings but not necessarily in this one. And they only create sapient undead with the informed consent of the souls.

I figure the good-aligned necromancer would lean more on the other parts of the grab-bag, like the fear effects, shadowy stuff, and the dessication/decay/rot/entropy kind of things, saving the undeath magic for animals or special occasions.

Millstone85
2015-10-24, 09:21 AM
I figure the good-aligned necromancer would lean more on the other parts of the grab-bag, like the fear effects, shadowy stuff, and the dessication/decay/rot/entropy kind of thingsThat's what I would call the darkness / spookium elementalist side of the job. Probably the part that pays the bills. However, this is not what I would play the class for.


saving the undeath magic for animals or special occasions.This is.

Darth Ultron
2015-10-24, 09:50 AM
Your kinda talking more about an ''immortal clone'' then you are ''undead''. How do you even see a living being as separate from undead?

Undead, at there very most basic, are living creatures that have been keep aware and active after they have died. And this has the basic assumption that reality means for things to die as part of the natural order of things. And to bring something back that has died, goes against that order. If you don't have that basic assumption, you can't have undead.

I have never used the silly 3e/P idea that all necromancy is evil. I use the more 2E idea, where it depends. You can split necromancy into three types: White, Gray and Black. White and Black are easy to see, it is the Gray that you need to be careful of...

Cazero
2015-10-24, 10:15 AM
The Death Curse from Harry Potter is the cleanest kill possible. The target is alive, and then it's dead. No suffering, no agony, no pain, and a clean body for the funerals. It's the most merciful way to kill someone, and clearly fits in the necromancy box. And it's less evil than any other way of killing someone, like fireballs or disintegrations.

And about undeads : saying they are 'always evil' is ridiculously stupid. The main evil thing about undeads is how their new way of sustenance often involve the pain and suffering of living creatures. Make an undead who doesn't hunger for blood/brains/flesh of living people, and the resulting creature may not be evil. Undeath is a tool like any other, and the only 'evil' thing about it is the 'desecrating body' part, wich is moot if you got permission beforehand.

Cluedrew
2015-10-24, 10:27 AM
5. All undead created have the same basic nature they did when alive, ...I actually take issue with this one point. The reason is straightforward, if you have the same nature as when you were alive you are not a member of the undead, you are alive. That is the fundamental difference between "resurrection" and "reanimation".

And the word reanimation is actually illustrative here. Even if taken to not be evil resurrection (your premise #1), what is an animation? It is a moving picture, an image that has nothing behind it besides the thoughts and intentions of the creator. Most undead are more advanced than that, even the generic swarm zombie can dumbly react to its surroundings, but the point remains they are not quite "complete" humans. Well I can't actually say you're wrong (in fact I have broken this rule myself on occasion) but I think you are missing the "point" of the classic undead.

Admittedly the point of the classic undead runs quite counter to what your trying to discuss here. Perversions of life, disrespect of the dead, loss of the individual and so on. You don't have to use those things, but you shouldn't forget that is where they came from. And no this doesn't mean that undead have to be evil but an undead should be different on some intrinsic level from the living.

Millstone85
2015-10-24, 11:15 AM
Undead, at there very most basic, are living creatures that have been keep aware and active after they have died. And this has the basic assumption that reality means for things to die as part of the natural order of things. And to bring something back that has died, goes against that order. If you don't have that basic assumption, you can't have undead.That's true. What I would suggest is to treat "the natural order" as an ideal of "true neutral" alignment, mostly uphold by druids. A character who pursues goodness, who wants to better the world, can be dissatisfied with the ways of nature.


The Death Curse from Harry Potter is the cleanest kill possible. The target is alive, and then it's dead. No suffering, no agony, no pain, and a clean body for the funerals. It's the most merciful way to kill someone, and clearly fits in the necromancy box. And it's less evil than any other way of killing someone, like fireballs or disintegrations.Since the HP universe has ghosts and Avada Kedavra initially appeared to leave none, I had been wondering if perhaps the spell denied its victims any form of existence after death, annihilating their very soul. That would justify the spell being such a taboo. A certain passage kinda ruined my theory, though.


I actually take issue with this one point. The reason is straightforward, if you have the same nature as when you were alive you are not a member of the undead, you are alive. That is the fundamental difference between "resurrection" and "reanimation".Yes and I think that a good aligned necromancer would make more sense in a setting without any "positive vs negative energy" / "Revive kills zombie" nonsense. Instead, reanimation would be the messy bridge between healing and resurrection.

Gracht Grabmaw
2015-10-24, 11:27 AM
The way I play it in my setting, raising a soulless dead body to do menial tasks isn't really considered evil, you won't make any friends with it to be sure, but it's no different from making a golem. It's only considered crossing the line into necromancy when you start screwing around with souls, binding ghosts or forcing undead curses like vampirism or revenancy on living souls.

Honest Tiefling
2015-10-24, 11:38 AM
3.5/3.0 has the idea of negative energy, which tends to mess things up a bit. A lot of settings (including those from other games) have undead be associated with some sort of contamination, be it either spiritual or physical. I would say that if your undead creations leak bad mojo all over the place, you probably shouldn't be making them.

I would also say that making non-sentient undead is fine, if perhaps a little squicky to some cultures. Great-grandpa's dead, he's not using that body anymore. We can either leave it in the ground to fertilize some daisies, or have it do some dangerous mining. I could imagine a lot of people don't want to see their relatives get up and move around, but I wouldn't say it is necessarily evil, either.

ThinkMinty
2015-10-24, 11:47 AM
The Death Curse from Harry Potter is the cleanest kill possible. The target is alive, and then it's dead. No suffering, no agony, no pain, and a clean body for the funerals. It's the most merciful way to kill someone, and clearly fits in the necromancy box. And it's less evil than any other way of killing someone, like fireballs or disintegrations.

True. However, the other methods leave room for survival, where as an insta-dead has the spoopy effect of making someone dead as a doornail. I think the Death Curse had "you want them dead" as a spell component, which means it's only of use for the more murder-happy kind of wizard. Maybe it's bad because it makes killing so easy? I don't know Rowling's reasoning though. It could just be because it's a scary spell that kills people.


Yes and I think that a good aligned necromancer would make more sense in a setting without any "positive vs negative energy" / "Revive kills zombie" nonsense. Instead, reanimation would be the messy bridge between healing and resurrection.

Oddly enough I like the positive/negative thing/revive kills zombie thing, if only for its inverse where a necromancer has magical maiming magic for maiming. I have a soft spot for the kind of magic that can just snap an arm for arm-snapping's sake.

It's one of the things that keeps necromancy's toolbox wider than just being "make the zombies".


I actually take issue with this one point. The reason is straightforward, if you have the same nature as when you were alive you are not a member of the undead, you are alive. That is the fundamental difference between "resurrection" and "reanimation".

By nature I meant more along the lines of "So and so was always quiet, but friendly." than the nature of being alive or dead. Sort of a "who you are" rather than "what you are" kind of thing.


And the word reanimation is actually illustrative here. Even if taken to not be evil resurrection (your premise #1), what is an animation? It is a moving picture, an image that has nothing behind it besides the thoughts and intentions of the creator. Most undead are more advanced than that, even the generic swarm zombie can dumbly react to its surroundings, but the point remains they are not quite "complete" humans. Well I can't actually say you're wrong (in fact I have broken this rule myself on occasion) but I think you are missing the "point" of the classic undead.

Is it something that is a twisted reflection of life? Yes. Does a sizeable percentage of the population recoil in horror if a friendly skeleton says hello? Yes. Are these undead intrinsically evil; starving loons out to eat your brains and babies? No.

Sort of "Undead as People" rules, I guess. They do make a lot of jokes about it, not all of which are good.


Admittedly the point of the classic undead runs quite counter to what your trying to discuss here. Perversions of life, disrespect of the dead, loss of the individual and so on. You don't have to use those things, but you shouldn't forget that is where they came from. And no this doesn't mean that undead have to be evil but an undead should be different on some intrinsic level from the living.

I mean, I was still gonna include the stigma, but have the structure of the cosmos not stacking the deck in favor of it because that's just...boring.

wumpus
2015-10-24, 12:04 PM
Good-Aligned necromancy would stand most campaign settings on their head.

Preventing or simply allowing a body to not be re-viable would be a mortal sin. Presumably you would try equally hard to get a dead body out of a fire (for reanimation even if raise dead were not available) as a living person. Search and rescue would basically not have a cut off as you could still expect to revive a skeleton after arbitrary long delays.

Suicide (or allowing yourself to be killed if avada kavadra or similar is less painful) to preserve your body at full strength (say in your mid twenties or so) is only slightly problematic. Depending on the local religions, it may well look on such in much the way it looks on simply killing yourself to visit heaven early (presumably any real historical church that believed that died out really fast).

[D&D specific ideas follow]

Note that there would always be disadvantages to being undead. Since undead can't be raised, I'm pretty sure that you can't re-animate the same corpse twice (without raising the living). Being undsovereignead means you can't use raise dead, it takes at least a resurrection (7th level, 10kgp). This would make characters think twice about being reanimated before nearing death due to age.

The whole idea of undead being unraiseable should give the good necromancers pause. If you can't raise the undead, but you *can* raise the host it inhabits, are they two separate creatures (as Rich's rules work). Note that raised dead have limited memories of being dead (although I have difficulty believing Durkon would forget being imprisoned) and it may be possible that the dead are participating in a mass masquerade to convince the living to keep creating more undead. This would be far easier somewhere like Eberron where one good church has good undead (the Sovereign Host) and the other "good" church has a god that is at least as evil as good and is thoroughly infiltrated with evil.

Millstone85
2015-10-24, 12:38 PM
Oddly enough I like the positive/negative thing/revive kills zombie thing, if only for its inverse where a necromancer has magical maiming magic for maiming. I have a soft spot for the kind of magic that can just snap an arm for arm-snapping's sake.

It's one of the things that keeps necromancy's toolbox wider than just being "make the zombies".In a setting without the positive/negative energy distinction and only life magic, the necromancer himself could still very much harm his enemies. Instead of pumping them up with death, just drain the life out of them. Or you could remember that germs are alive too, and buff those. Or you could turn people into giant tumors. Those last two options might be too cruel for a good necromancer, though.

Regitnui
2015-10-24, 12:40 PM
"Good undead in the sovereign host"? Elaborate?

A player of mine came up with a reason for a good-aligned necromancer; he worships the gods of honorable battle, and so believes raising the dead gives their souls a second chance to find honour on the battlefield. Not necessarily the same battlefield, but the chance to die a "good death" as some would put it. Of course, this is Eberron, where one of the major religions glorifies they undead as martyrs and country has to field an undead army to not be overrun by the living constructs everyone else was using.

MReav
2015-10-24, 12:54 PM
Osiris is a good-aligned undead deity.

I can see a certain amount of consent being involved. Someone might be willing to donate their body to being reanimated as a mindless corpse for dangerous/hard labour so that others don't have to. Your typical evil necromancer is a grave-robber or someone who murders people to serve as his zombies.

Gensuru
2015-10-24, 03:14 PM
Well Necromancy, despite some stereotypes, does not start and end with corporeal undead.

A zombie might be unsettling to watch (let alone smell) but that's hardly the only use for Necromancy. Ghosts in particular can be quite useful.


Necromancers could be used for all kinds of murder investigations. Briefly reanimate a murder victim, question it about how it died and whether it saw who murdered it. By the same token, afterlife or not, you can give surviving family members at least some small measure of comfort.

I suppose one can also call the spirits of all sorts of wise or otherwise experienced and skilled people to ask them for advice in any given crisis. Even better, one can use Necromancy to preserve all sorts of people for posterity in case their advice or leadership is ever needed. On a voluntary basis, of course. The same applies to great warriors. The greatest protectors of the realm are honoured by getting stored alongside their equipment so that they can be reanimated whenever the land is in peril.


I'd think the main difference between good and bad necromancy would be the issue of who is to benefit from its use and whether or not consent is involved.

Also, while evil necromancers might go for the rotting corpse look for added terror, I'd assume that any necromancer who actually has any real skill at his craft can restore a body to near lifelike conditions. Especially if we go with all undead having some measure of awareness it's rather important to keep the bodies of any volunteers in as pristine a condition as possible. The more lifelike they appear, the less unsettling to watch they'd also become, I'd say. If you can't at first glance tell who's alive and who is undead you're doing a good job.

CoffeeIncluded
2015-10-24, 03:26 PM
What about someone who wants to use undead for medical purposes, such as studying anatomy (specifically the way certain structures work when they're moving)?

Cluedrew
2015-10-24, 05:24 PM
By nature I meant more along the lines of "So and so was always quiet, but friendly." than the nature of being alive or dead. Sort of a "who you are" rather than "what you are" kind of thing.But I don't think that the two are completely unrelated. Although some "what"s are just labels that people apply, but I think living vs. dead is less arbitrary. Even if it is something not "evil" like they don't develop any new habits nor does there personality shift even when subjected to situations that would usually effect someone.

Speaking to the main topic I don't really see a problem with it unless someone tries to go long-term with it and try to achieve immortality. Simply because eventually the old should move out of the way for the young. Because if you don't have a notable death rate than you can't have a notable birth rate and... well there is a lack of data about civilizations with really high populations of immortals but I don't think it would work out well. And I can't see a system to distribute it to a few fairly.

Mando Knight
2015-10-24, 06:38 PM
1. Reanimation in-and-of-itself, for the sake of discussion, is not evil.

This assumption is the entire argument. If there are forms of necromantic reanimation that are non-Evil, then a necromancer who only uses non-Evil necromancy and is otherwise Good is Good. If the process of reanimation is inextricably linked to doing something else that is always Evil, then the distinction is meaningless.

That said, I do think creating any kind of mindless undead is quite disrespectful to the person whose body you just reanimated, viewing the person's body as nothing more than a tool for whomever possesses it. If the spirit of the deceased is trapped within the mindless body, then that's straight-up Evil.

Kelb_Panthera
2015-10-24, 06:39 PM
I have never used the silly 3e/P idea that all necromancy is evil. I use the more 2E idea, where it depends. You can split necromancy into three types: White, Gray and Black. White and Black are easy to see, it is the Gray that you need to be careful of...

Why does this nonsense persist after 15 years? I can't speak for pathfinder but 3.X categorically does -not- say, at any point, that necromancy is evil.

Necromancy is a whole school of magic full of spells that have nothing to do with undeath and the majority of which are not labeled as evil in any way.

The only thing that's labeled, very specifically, as evil is the creation of new undead. Not controlling them or empowering them, just creating them. That's it. The spells that do so just happen to be in the necromancy school.

Outside of D&D it's more a matter of societal views on desecration of the dead in any way being associated with the classically evil powers of that society's shared beliefs that makes the idea of undeath, a form of ultimate desecration, something evil and wrong. Somehow, I'd have to look into the details, the term "necromancy," which originally comes from an idea that certain specially trained and/or gifted people could simply speaking with the dead, got associated almost entirely with undeath in all its forms throughout fiction so people use it as a shorthand for that instead of its D&D specific or classical meanings.

As to the OP's version of "undeath," he's already curtailed any real argument beyond "it's just too distastefully squicky." It's a drastically different version from any of the classical versions of the concept that deliberately strips out all of the things that make undeath unacceptable under most other versions. It's an inherently theological discussion and he said not to discuss theology.

Thrudd
2015-10-24, 09:28 PM
I'm wondering what makes for a good-aligned Necromancer. This isn't specific to any one system, although I personally dislike the notion that Necromancy is somehow more evil than Enchantment/Mind Control is as far as D&D/Pathfinder is concerned.

Now, beforehand, for the sake of the kinds of discussion I'm looking for, I'll throw out some basic assumptions that predicate the discussion.

1. Reanimation in-and-of-itself, for the sake of discussion, is not evil.
2. Religious (real or fictional) objections are not what's being discussed. If you can ground the same objection in secular philosophy, free free to make it. This is a forum heuristic anyway, it just bears overt mentioning in the context of morality and zombification.
3. Controlling or enslaving the undead is a separate issue from creating them, and is very much something I'd like to hear thoughts about.
4. The original soul/essence of the reanimated being returns to the corpse under normal conditions, although mix-and-match necromancy is possible but not necessarily more or less difficult.
5. All undead created have the same basic nature they did when alive, although their memories of life are somewhat fuzzy, especially towards the time of their passing. No undead can recall the actual moment of death, but some may remember the process of dying if it took more than a few minutes.
6. None of the undead have any memories of an afterlife regardless of your opinion as to whether one exists or not.
7. All undead created retain the same mental faculties they had at the prime of their lived lifespan, and this will not deteriorate or advance as time goes by. Sapient individuals remain sapient, sentient individuals remain sentient.
Examples:

A "teenaged" undead has the mind of a teenager, and will continue to have an adolescent mind centuries down the line.
An "old man" undead who had dementia in later years of life no longer has dementia.
An undead dog, steed, or other animal retains any training it received in life.

8. The undead form new memories just like anyone else.
9. As far as capacities go, an undead being has as much agency as a living person does. Whether or not undead people are people is up to your opinion. I like to think they are, as far as this thread is concerned, but mileage will vary.


So, thoughts on good-aligned necromancy? Do you still think it's impossible? What kind of stuff would separate the good from the bad from the neutral?

You've already declared that animating dead and creating undead isn't evil, and the undead themselves aren't evil, so there would be nothing inherently evil about being a necromancer. Evil necromancers would use their undead minions for evil ends and treat them like slaves. Good necromancers would treat their undead minions kindly and try to win their loyalty and seek to do good by their actions. Neutral might not be particularly kind to their minions, but are not cruel nor seeking evil goals.

The thing that normally makes necromancers evil is because they usually focus on the act of creating evil creatures aka undead, which is always an evil thing to do (because undead serve no purpose but to terrorize the living). In your world, you have redefined what it means to be undead, so it isn't an issue. My question is, what's the point of redefining undead? Why shouldn't they be evil monsters? Is there a point in emphasizing the point that necromancers don't have to be evil? Most people that want to play as a necromancer are planning on an evil character anyway, even if it isn't forced on them. They just want an excuse to write neutral on their sheet, so paladins and good clerics don't come after them.

Regitnui
2015-10-25, 01:35 AM
Let's travel to Tamriel, the land of the Elder Scrolls, where there is a culture that engages in necromancy and isn't treated as a bunch of evil monsters to be pilloried at the first opportunity. I speak of the Dunmer, or Dark Elves, who practice necromancy as a form of ancestor worship. In many of the ancestral tombs of Morrowind, you can find Ancestor Shades or Bonewalkers, crafted undead specifically made and charged with defense of the honored ancestors' ashes. The Dunmer are violently opposed to any other form of necromancy, and have a religious authority specifically meant to hunt necromancers.

Back to the real world; many ancestor-worshipping cultures have a shaman who "speaks" to the dead. This is probably the safest way to handle necromancy under the gaze of the paladin or a western-based fantasy. Spells like Speak with Dead and Commune are extended to ask the 'remnant' left in the corpse for help, or call up the spirits for a brief time on a matter important to the spirit in question.

ThinkMinty
2015-10-25, 02:03 AM
You've already declared that animating dead and creating undead isn't evil, and the undead themselves aren't evil, so there would be nothing inherently evil about being a necromancer. Evil necromancers would use their undead minions for evil ends and treat them like slaves. Good necromancers would treat their undead minions kindly and try to win their loyalty and seek to do good by their actions. Neutral might not be particularly kind to their minions, but are not cruel nor seeking evil goals.

The thing that normally makes necromancers evil is because they usually focus on the act of creating evil creatures aka undead, which is always an evil thing to do (because undead serve no purpose but to terrorize the living). In your world, you have redefined what it means to be undead, so it isn't an issue. My question is, what's the point of redefining undead? Why shouldn't they be evil monsters? Is there a point in emphasizing the point that necromancers don't have to be evil? Most people that want to play as a necromancer are planning on an evil character anyway, even if it isn't forced on them. They just want an excuse to write neutral on their sheet, so paladins and good clerics don't come after them.

I'm one of those "rejects Always Evil as a reflex" kind of fantasy fans, that's why.


As to the OP's version of "undeath," he's already curtailed any real argument beyond "it's just too distastefully squicky." It's a drastically different version from any of the classical versions of the concept that deliberately strips out all of the things that make undeath unacceptable under most other versions. It's an inherently theological discussion and he said not to discuss theology.

How is it inherently theological? It's inherently philosophical. I don't mind someone taking a theological objection and making that as a person rather than an adherent, I just don't want culpability for anyone's points being exported to a book or text I can't argue with, which is why I took theology off the table.

DCraw
2015-10-25, 02:12 AM
As I see it, as with so many things, it ultimately comes down to a question of consent. I'm going to apply the standard used for battery in most common law jurisdictions to explain and shape this view. Generally speaking, any physical interference with or touching of a person is unacceptable unless the person consents to it or it's the type of everyday interaction that they implicitly consent to by existing in society (ie tapping someone on the shoulder to get their attention)*. For example, getting into a fight without some justifying factor (such as self defence) is generally considered unacceptable**; have both sides agree to it - and everything that it entails - and it's now a popular sport such as boxing or other martial arts.

If we apply the same standard posthumously that we apply in life, it follows that reanimating a corpse without consent is interfering with their person without consent and is thus unacceptable, but reanimating a corpse with the reanimatee's freely given informed consent should not be considered evil. This would apply even without the extensive list of provisos given in the OP.


* It's actually a lot more complicated than this, but that's the basic concept and is enough for our purposes.
**Note: I'm looking at this from a wider perspective than just D&D. Even in that narrow view, though, murderhoboism needs some form of justification to avoid being evil. Just starting a barfight for ****s and giggles is evil, so my point still stands.

ThinkMinty
2015-10-25, 03:42 AM
As I see it, as with so many things, it ultimately comes down to a question of consent. I'm going to apply the standard used for battery in most common law jurisdictions to explain and shape this view. Generally speaking, any physical interference with or touching of a person is unacceptable unless the person consents to it or it's the type of everyday interaction that they implicitly consent to by existing in society (ie tapping someone on the shoulder to get their attention)*. For example, getting into a fight without some justifying factor (such as self defence) is generally considered unacceptable**; have both sides agree to it - and everything that it entails - and it's now a popular sport such as boxing or other martial arts.

If we apply the same standard posthumously that we apply in life, it follows that reanimating a corpse without consent is interfering with their person without consent and is thus unacceptable, but reanimating a corpse with the reanimatee's freely given informed consent should not be considered evil. This would apply even without the extensive list of provisos given in the OP.


* It's actually a lot more complicated than this, but that's the basic concept and is enough for our purposes.
**Note: I'm looking at this from a wider perspective than just D&D. Even in that narrow view, though, murderhoboism needs some form of justification to avoid being evil. Just starting a barfight for ****s and giggles is evil, so my point still stands.

I included a lot of provisos because the other threads I read on the subject beforehand devolved into, "No, you can't still, because my X gives me the", and I just pre-emptively sniped the arguments I thought would waste everyone's time. I did that because I wanted opinions on what would make it work, not people hemming and hawing over the idea and offering nothing but thumb-nosing.

Not that there isn't room to disagree, but it does ultimately come down to consent if you're using sapient remains. Reanimating a sentient animal is different, but I'd break it down this way...

These three things are already true:
1. People can use animals for food, and that only bothers vegans. For clarity's sake, I mean this in the context of milk, eggs, and honey rather than eating their flesh.
2. People can use animals for work, and that's only as bad as the conditions are.
3. People can use dead animals for food, and that's more subjective, but not so much intrinsically evil as it is gruesome. Some carnicultural practices are certainly cruel to the point of abject wickedness, though.

So given those, there's a missing corollary:
4. People can use dead animals for work, and that's not any better or worse than using live ones, although it may be more efficient.

Oddly enough, murdering people (or animals) to acquire the corpse sounds evil to me, outside of some kind of consensual-assisted-suicide-into-reanimation sequence for the purpose of treating a terminal illness.

DCraw
2015-10-25, 04:33 AM
I included a lot of provisos because the other threads I read on the subject beforehand devolved into, "No, you can't still, because my X gives me the", and I just pre-emptively sniped the arguments I thought would waste everyone's time. I did that because I wanted opinions on what would make it work, not people hemming and hawing over the idea and offering nothing but thumb-nosing.

Fair enough.


Not that there isn't room to disagree, but it does ultimately come down to consent if you're using sapient remains. Reanimating a sentient animal is different, but I'd break it down this way...

These three things are already true:
1. People can use animals for food, and that only bothers vegans. For clarity's sake, I mean this in the context of milk, eggs, and honey rather than eating their flesh.
2. People can use animals for work, and that's only as bad as the conditions are.
3. People can use dead animals for food, and that's more subjective, but not so much intrinsically evil as it is gruesome. Some carnicultural practices are certainly cruel to the point of abject wickedness, though.

So given those, there's a missing corollary:
4. People can use dead animals for work, and that's not any better or worse than using live ones, although it may be more efficient.

True, but ultimately this boils down to a question of to what degree should we afford rights to animals, rather than the question of can necromancy be non-evil. We already vastly limit the right to bodily integrity when applied to animals, so the fact that necromancy would not be an exception is unsurprising. I don't see this as useful to the question of can necromancy be non-evil, other than to note that we often sanction actions against other beings that would be evil if applied to us.


Oddly enough, murdering people (or animals) to acquire the corpse sounds evil to me, outside of some kind of consensual-assisted-suicide-into-reanimation sequence for the purpose of treating a terminal illness.

Well, those are cases where consent has not been given. Murder implies non-consent. As such, they are irrelevant to the proposition that consensual necromancy can be non-evil. The border case is where the death was non-consensual, but the spirit is contacted and consent is given to be reanimated. In that case I would argue that the two events are distinct, and that the immorality of the death does not affect the morality of the reanimation.

There are many grey areas, especially where it is unclear whether someone is able to give informed consent. This is a contentious point that plagues many real world moral debates, notably the question of when is euthanasia morally acceptable. That said, if we consider a platonic ideal of consensual necromancy, I really can't see why it would not be good. There will always be edge cases, but this does not negate the core principle.

Regitnui
2015-10-25, 06:42 AM
There are many grey areas, especially where it is unclear whether someone is able to give informed consent. This is a contentious point that plagues many real world moral debates, notably the question of when is euthanasia morally acceptable. That said, if we consider a platonic ideal of consensual necromancy, I really can't see why it would not be good. There will always be edge cases, but this does not negate the core principle.

As I posted earlier, ancestor-worshipping societies would be more likely to accept or create 'ethical' necromancy. The ethics of it would likely be a little screwy or indistinct to those outside the culture, but consent (Servants willingly following their lord to the grave, lesser family members volunteering for the 'honor' of guarding the family tomb, etc.) would likely be a core distinction. Even then, it might be smarter to use willing corpses if you're looking to set up a long-term or high-value usable commodity. A servant that doesn't obey commands is pointless, after all.

Cluedrew
2015-10-25, 09:16 AM
A couple of the recent posts with the work slant have given me an idea about what might actually be the closest real world equivalent: cheap imported labour.

For this to make sense you have to discount necromancy as a life prolonging strategy or assume that these cases don't usually overlap. I'm willing to do this because of the alive=/=dead argument I made earlier. So I'm going to assume that even if

Outside of some special cases, such as jobs requiring really long or even indefinite periods of isolation, it would be generally better to have a living person on the job than a dead one. So why have an undead on the job? Cost, an undead doesn't have the same expenses as a living creature (food and similar) so they can be paid much less for the same job if they are paid at all. This is saves money for the one who is paying to have the job done. It also frees up the living person who had the job before... unless they got no where to go and then they are just out of a job.

Actually there is a very scary cycle hear where the displaced workers are forced into death work contracts so they don't have to feed themselves and can pass whatever money is left over to there still living families which in turn displaces more workers and so on.

It may not be a perfect match but for how undead would fit into the economy I think it is a useful comparison.

goto124
2015-10-25, 09:19 AM
ancestor-worshipping societies would be more likely to accept or create 'ethical' necromancy. The ethics of it would likely be a little screwy or indistinct to those outside the culture, but consent (Servants willingly following their lord to the grave, lesser family members volunteering for the 'honor' of guarding the family tomb, etc.) would likely be a core distinction.

Part of the problem with raising dead: people objecting to their family members and ancestors getting desecrated.

Having an entire society that sees honor in being able to help out even after death does pretty much deal with the problem though.

Mando Knight
2015-10-25, 11:21 AM
One major ethical issue I just thought of: decay.

The assumptions given do not address this issue, so it remains a pertinent point: the reanimation process is animating a corpse. That moving corpse is still a corpse and represents a real biohazard if it is permitted to continue to decay. And if the reanimation process doesn't restore cellular processes (i.e. actually makes it alive again like a true resurrection) but instead simply animates the body, then the process of moving it around is likely to hasten the physical decay of the body, as the unliving tissue won't regenerate from fatigue or other damages.

Teapot Salty
2015-10-25, 11:30 AM
I don't know were I saw it, (reply a link if you recognize it) but there was a story, on the forum I think, which was told through the eyes of an aging necromancer. How he had raised undead to help with menial labor and support the economy, and ease lives. But the heroes of course, saw this as "evil necromancer overrunning the world with zombies" and slaughtered them all. They busted down the door to the necromancers room, only to find an old, sickly, and cranky man who cursed them for destroying things that were causing so much good. Needless to say, it does look like necromancy can be good aligned.

Regitnui
2015-10-25, 11:34 AM
Part of the problem with raising dead: people objecting to their family members and ancestors getting desecrated.

Having an entire society that sees honor in being able to help out even after death does pretty much deal with the problem though.

Since the culture worships the ancestors, it'd be considered an honor or even redemption for criminal elements of the family or clan.

elonin
2015-10-25, 11:53 AM
Most of this depends on how you are role playing. You could have a necromancer that gets people to sign a contract or followers for a cause. But if you are playing as a good necromancer that takes a number of the baddies off the table. Well, unless you are just going to justify evil or play as evil for a good cause.

Weren't there good aligned undead in some source book?

Regitnui
2015-10-25, 01:31 PM
Most of this depends on how you are role playing. You could have a necromancer that gets people to sign a contract or followers for a cause. But if you are playing as a good necromancer that takes a number of the baddies off the table. Well, unless you are just going to justify evil or play as evil for a good cause.

Weren't there good aligned undead in some source book?

Eberron Flavour Excuse Ahoy!!

In my favourite setting (I should stop banging on about it), there were the Undying; Elves subjected to an arcane mummification prices that kept their spirits bound to their bodies so they could act as guidance for their living family. They were only made possible by the presence of a 'manifest zone' to the Positive Energy Plane (equivalent), which exists on the elven island of Aerenal. They reacted the same as the living to inflict/cure, but had similar immunities to negative energy undead. The Aerenali elves had a very Mesoamerican vibe to them, with the main undying city being the political and spiritual core of their nation. Collectively, the Undying Court was powerful enough to grant cleric spells and hold off dragon regiments.

Kelb_Panthera
2015-10-25, 07:53 PM
I'm one of those "rejects Always Evil as a reflex" kind of fantasy fans, that's why.

Always evil is an inherently fantasy related concept. Real people don't have alignments. When a certain person or action is condemned as evil the condemner is saying that he finds that thing morally objectionable to the point of utterly rejecting it in its entirety. Morality, however, is a culturally subjective matter. What is evil to one society may be acceptable or even laudable by another. This is somewhat unlikely because of biological influences on human psychology but hardly impossible.




How is it inherently theological? It's inherently philosophical. I don't mind someone taking a theological objection and making that as a person rather than an adherent, I just don't want culpability for anyone's points being exported to a book or text I can't argue with, which is why I took theology off the table.

The classical objections are all based on the soul and inherent, magical evil being real things that such magics touch on and that by doing so they corrupt the subjects, both caster and animated dead. Moreover, you can't really argue biology when magic is involved so there must be some essence or force, classically referred to as the soul, acting as at least part of the animating force. Any discussion of souls touches on the concept of continuation after death and both are inherently theological concepts. By slicing away these aspects, you've removed any serious grounds for objection but you've also divorced your "undeath" from the classic meaning and connotations of the term. What you're discussing is more reanimation or even partial resurrection than undeath.

ThinkMinty
2015-10-25, 11:09 PM
Always evil is an inherently fantasy related concept. Real people don't have alignments. When a certain person or action is condemned as evil the condemner is saying that he finds that thing morally objectionable to the point of utterly rejecting it in its entirety. Morality, however, is a culturally subjective matter. What is evil to one society may be acceptable or even laudable by another. This is somewhat unlikely because of biological influences on human psychology but hardly impossible.

Reality's closest analogue is sort of like crimes against humanity, where doing it is so bad everyone else on the planet has been hurt by it having been done.


The classical objections are all based on the soul and inherent, magical evil being real things that such magics touch on and that by doing so they corrupt the subjects, both caster and animated dead. Moreover, you can't really argue biology when magic is involved so there must be some essence or force, classically referred to as the soul, acting as at least part of the animating force. Any discussion of souls touches on the concept of continuation after death and both are inherently theological concepts. By slicing away these aspects, you've removed any serious grounds for objection but you've also divorced your "undeath" from the classic meaning and connotations of the term. What you're discussing is more reanimation or even partial resurrection than undeath.

Huh. I figured the whole "due to the dead" thing would factor in somewhat.

I don't see why you can't talk about souls without necessarily getting churchy about it, though. I just want someone to say "I personally find it objectionable" rather than "this book finds it objectionable" when making objections to things.

Quertus
2015-10-26, 01:27 AM
How to make this work... my first thought is to make re-animation only work with consent, just like resurrection.

But there is so much about the underlying mechanics that I would love to discuss!

First, as has already been said, in D&D (which as soon as you say "good-aligned", that's where my head goes) undead are powered by negative energy, which (depending on the edition) tends to make them evil, and tends to make making them evil.

I believe 3e had immortal formerly-dead that were powered by positive energy, but that isn't what is being described here.

But... just what is being described here? Or is that left up to the reader, as part of the "how do we make this work"?

Hmmm... OK... still starting with D&D as a base... make this new version of animate dead function like non-dispellable permanent animate object... plus binding a willing soul back to its former body with resurrection-like magic. AFAIK, there has never been any debate about "is resurrection of a willing target moral", so are we OK?

Well, no. Even if we add in a creative use of Make Whole etc to fix the body, so there is no long-term psychological trauma of having a body with obvious signs of death, there is still the OP's "I'm a teenager forever" to deal with. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but "having a teenage mindset" is largely a matter of chemistry - the body produces certain hormones, which in turn tend to cause certain moods and mindsets. What is the long-term psychological effect of trapping a sentience at a certain stage of development? Woe be to the female zombie with permanent PMS.

If these bodies still have a functioning biochemistry, how do they replenish themselves? Or does magic just replenish them to their default, animated state? I really wouldn't like to be the permanent sleep-dep zombie (either because my body doesn't fix itself, or because I was in a state of severe sleep-dep when I died, and so that's my new default state).

So, fine, let's say that Animate Dead is now (or functions like) a series of spells, including spells that restore the body to a functional, pretty state, and some sort of biochemical scrubber that set the bodies all into a "good" state before they are animated, and that the magic of the spell keeps their biochemistry stable. Heck, we could even add in that the magic also comes with a free permanent Gentle Repose, so that the body never decays. Are we good now?

I'd say we're well past the D&D murderhobo definition of "good". But probably nowhere near where I would feel comfortable giving it a blanket good label.

If you're just animating the dead for them to be enslaved, it's not a good act. If you are transforming a Person into a Non-Person, I doubt most ethics systems would call that good. So we almost need a society, a setting in which to judge this act.

If the Necromancer in question comes from a society in which the undead are still Persons, and treated accordingly, we've got a good start. If there are successful life-undeath-transition Councillors to help with whatever psychological changes occur when your biology and biochemistry become static, or when your mind (that was designed for decades) has trouble dealing with thousands of years and more, that's even better. It would also be nice if there was somehow some scientific evidence that a potentially infinite population was sustainable in this Necromancer's world. Perhaps if, after a certain time, all undead become incorporeal (and there are Necromancer spells to temporarily re-corporate them?).

Of course, we've still got issues surrounding the gentle mind/emotion control of scrubbing the undead's biochemistry to an "ideal" state, fundamental questions of whether animals can be "willing", and huge law-enforcement / legal system questions surrounding redefining punishment of the undead (incarceration for 1 year - or for life - takes on a very different meaning for an immortal undead; inheritance would likely be nonexistent in this society, etc).

Since we based this in part on resurrection (for bringing the soul back, the soul being willing, etc), there could even be a True Animation counterpart to True Resurrection that doesn't require a body - it creates a whole new body for the spirit to animate.

So... other than reproduction (which the undead presumably can't do), what good is the 1st level commoner to the 10,000 year old nigh-infinite skills zombie? Have we effectively turned the living into second-class citizens, permanently subordinate to The Man? And, if these (perhaps literally) "ancestor-worshiping" people are happy with this arrangement, do we care?

ThinkMinty
2015-10-26, 02:07 AM
How to make this work... my first thought is to make re-animation only work with consent, just like resurrection.

But there is so much about the underlying mechanics that I would love to discuss!

First, as has already been said, in D&D (which as soon as you say "good-aligned", that's where my head goes) undead are powered by negative energy, which (depending on the edition) tends to make them evil, and tends to make making them evil.

I believe 3e had immortal formerly-dead that were powered by positive energy, but that isn't what is being described here.

But... just what is being described here? Or is that left up to the reader, as part of the "how do we make this work"?

Hmmm... OK... still starting with D&D as a base... make this new version of animate dead function like non-dispellable permanent animate object... plus binding a willing soul back to its former body with resurrection-like magic. AFAIK, there has never been any debate about "is resurrection of a willing target moral", so are we OK?

Well, no. Even if we add in a creative use of Make Whole etc to fix the body, so there is no long-term psychological trauma of having a body with obvious signs of death, there is still the OP's "I'm a teenager forever" to deal with. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but "having a teenage mindset" is largely a matter of chemistry - the body produces certain hormones, which in turn tend to cause certain moods and mindsets. What is the long-term psychological effect of trapping a sentience at a certain stage of development? Woe be to the female zombie with permanent PMS.

If these bodies still have a functioning biochemistry, how do they replenish themselves? Or does magic just replenish them to their default, animated state? I really wouldn't like to be the permanent sleep-dep zombie (either because my body doesn't fix itself, or because I was in a state of severe sleep-dep when I died, and so that's my new default state).

So, fine, let's say that Animate Dead is now (or functions like) a series of spells, including spells that restore the body to a functional, pretty state, and some sort of biochemical scrubber that set the bodies all into a "good" state before they are animated, and that the magic of the spell keeps their biochemistry stable. Heck, we could even add in that the magic also comes with a free permanent Gentle Repose, so that the body never decays. Are we good now?

I'd say we're well past the D&D murderhobo definition of "good". But probably nowhere near where I would feel comfortable giving it a blanket good label.

If you're just animating the dead for them to be enslaved, it's not a good act. If you are transforming a Person into a Non-Person, I doubt most ethics systems would call that good. So we almost need a society, a setting in which to judge this act.

If the Necromancer in question comes from a society in which the undead are still Persons, and treated accordingly, we've got a good start. If there are successful life-undeath-transition Councillors to help with whatever psychological changes occur when your biology and biochemistry become static, or when your mind (that was designed for decades) has trouble dealing with thousands of years and more, that's even better. It would also be nice if there was somehow some scientific evidence that a potentially infinite population was sustainable in this Necromancer's world. Perhaps if, after a certain time, all undead become incorporeal (and there are Necromancer spells to temporarily re-corporate them?).

Of course, we've still got issues surrounding the gentle mind/emotion control of scrubbing the undead's biochemistry to an "ideal" state, fundamental questions of whether animals can be "willing", and huge law-enforcement / legal system questions surrounding redefining punishment of the undead (incarceration for 1 year - or for life - takes on a very different meaning for an immortal undead; inheritance would likely be nonexistent in this society, etc).

Since we based this in part on resurrection (for bringing the soul back, the soul being willing, etc), there could even be a True Animation counterpart to True Resurrection that doesn't require a body - it creates a whole new body for the spirit to animate.

So... other than reproduction (which the undead presumably can't do), what good is the 1st level commoner to the 10,000 year old nigh-infinite skills zombie? Have we effectively turned the living into second-class citizens, permanently subordinate to The Man? And, if these (perhaps literally) "ancestor-worshiping" people are happy with this arrangement, do we care?

I do love a necrocratic society as a metaphor for how I feel about baby boomers, admittedly.

As for how an undead population gets interacted with in broader terms, it really is the kind of thing to ponder on for a long time. I do know that a lot of people would opt for cremation as a way of avoiding the possibility of return. There's also the idea that the King in the Mountain trope becomes useful if a powerful person leaves their corpse somewhere special for if they're ever needed again.

I did update the original post to indicate that I'm looking for making it one of those non-aligned things like a Fireball.

Satinavian
2015-10-26, 03:02 AM
I once played a necromancer cleric in 3.5, who

- used only enemy/animal corpses for skelletons/zombies
- contacted anyone else whom he wanted to make undead with "speak with dead" first
- tried to persuade party members to agree to being raised as undead in case of dying
- campaigned for a working society with living and undead members peacefully coexisting
- fought undead with a "hate of all living creatures" mindset as well as living "kill all undead" people to make his ideal society work
- went for diplomatic solutions whenever possible
- gave out "Awaken Undead" to randomly encountered skelletons and zombies whenever possible
- was undead himself

In this game he was still classified as evil as consequence for using evil tagged spells. But then we didn't care too much about alignement.


It would also be nice if there was somehow some scientific evidence that a potentially infinite population was sustainable in this Necromancer's world.There woulkd be no infinite population growth.
New undead can only come from living creatures. Thus the growth of undead is proportional to living creatures, not undead ones. But undead can be distroyed and sometimes are. Even if their "unlife expectance" is far greater than the life expectance of the living, it is not infinite. And the number of destroyed undead is proportional to the number of undead.

Together, that means there exists a stable equilibrium with more undead than living, but without further growth. (That is, if the number of the living does not grow without limits)




So... other than reproduction (which the undead presumably can't do), what good is the 1st level commoner to the 10,000 year old nigh-infinite skills zombie? Have we effectively turned the living into second-class citizens, permanently subordinate to The Man? And, if these (perhaps literally) "ancestor-worshiping" people are happy with this arrangement, do we care?
I could imagine such a society would treat the living as kind of a larval state or as children. Maybe don't give them responsibility or power but fiercly protect them as the future of the country.
It might even be that living lifes are all about having children and train the body for animation (as you will have to stick with the result forever) while all important work is done by the undead.

Storm_Of_Snow
2015-10-26, 07:54 AM
There could also be those who study necromancy in order to better fight it. And I like MReav's idea of the undead doing dangerous jobs to protect the living, and Gensuru's murder investigation one (although that would almost certainly lead to murderers making sure that can't happen). Or something more neutral could be judicial necromancy - criminals who're executed have their bodies reanimated to serve the society.

A lot of it's going to be how the society views it though - if they think your body is nothing more than a sack of meat and bones once you're dead, or your spirit is somewhere expecting a recall to help their descendants in dire circumstances, they'll probably view necromancy a lot more favourably than those who think the spirit goes to their just reward and dragging them back to the living world is wrong, or doing anything with the body is descration.

goto124
2015-10-26, 08:58 AM
Another possibility: dragging the soul from heaven is wrong, reanimating the soulless corpse is not wrong.

So 'bad necromancy' would involve pulling the soul from its eternal slumber ('come on, lemme sleep!'), while 'good necromancy' would bother just the body (which doesn't have a mind of its own).

Quertus
2015-10-26, 09:28 AM
There woulkd be no infinite population growth.
New undead can only come from living creatures. Thus the growth of undead is proportional to living creatures, not undead ones. But undead can be distroyed and sometimes are. Even if their "unlife expectance" is far greater than the life expectance of the living, it is not infinite. And the number of destroyed undead is proportional to the number of undead.

Together, that means there exists a stable equilibrium with more undead than living, but without further growth. (That is, if the number of the living does not grow without limits)




I could imagine such a society would treat the living as kind of a larval state or as children. Maybe don't give them responsibility or power but fiercly protect them as the future of the country.
It might even be that living lifes are all about having children and train the body for animation (as you will have to stick with the result forever) while all important work is done by the undead.

If every living being in the society becomes an undead, and if either a) none of the undead die, or b) the undead are re-raisable, then, over an infinite amount of time, you would accumulate an infinite number of undead. That is the issue I was referring to, and why I suggested the idea that undead become incorporeal.

Love the idea of undead as the parental guardians of their living "children".

Millstone85
2015-10-26, 09:29 AM
A friend was kind enough to gift me the Player's Handbook of 5e D&D and here is what I see:
> Your wizard specializes in one of eight schools of magic, including necromancy.
> The spells animate dead and create undead are very obviously from that school.
> The spells raise dead, resurrection and true resurrection are also necromancy.
> But your wizard can only learn the first two, while your cleric can learn all five.
> What's more:
Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

It would appear that the fifth edition recognizes bringing characters back from the dead as necromancy, no matter if they become undead or are back to genuine life. However, only the necromancy that brings you back to life can be good, and the gods have a monopoly on that.

Well, that sucks for wizarding necromancers. But that sort of thing is to be expected with the gods.

Now, if raise dead was accessible to bards, that would be insulting, ha ha. :elan:

Ralanr
2015-10-26, 12:12 PM
Wouldn't it also depend on what and how long you plan on using the corpse? I'm making a half-orc witch doctor (warlock) who does deal with undead aspects. He views actions that remove things outside the cycle of death (undead in general) as abominations, but is willing to use them to accomplish quick goals.

If it involves souls, well I'd imagine getting the souls consent is a big thing.

tomandtish
2015-10-26, 07:32 PM
In Fire Sea by Weiss and Hickman (book 3 of Death Gate Cycle), the Sartan of that world use Necromancy, with unfortunate consequences because they don't understand what they are using. The majority of them are probably not evil, but it could provide an interesting look at using power that you don't fully understand.

Two big issues: The consent question can come into play, as the undead eventually escape their control, since they didn't fully realize how much soul was left. More importantly, they didn't realize that for every person brought back this way, another one dies, so they were killing off their race (both here and on other worlds).

Quarian Rex
2015-10-26, 08:36 PM
When it comes to this sort of argument I think that it is less about how it should be (unless you are the DM you have very little choice about how Necromancy will be percieved, and even if you are you have little control over whether the players will go along with it) and more about how you can portray good necromancy in a setting where that isn't the norm.

To that end, since I see that it hasn't been mentioned yet, I give you this (http://imgur.com/gallery/kMgZ3wt).

If you haven't read it before, do so now. It's that good. If you have read it before, do so again. It's that good.

This was even the basis of a few characters I've made. The best way I've found to do it is with Spheres of Power using the Permanent Undead and Summon Spirit advanced talents. Combine that with the Leadership feat saying that all of your followers and such are dead members of your family and you can have one hell of a Caretaker.

Kelb_Panthera
2015-10-26, 09:42 PM
Reality's closest analogue is sort of like crimes against humanity, where doing it is so bad everyone else on the planet has been hurt by it having been done.

And it's a very poor analogue. No crime against humanity, no matter how heinous, harms -every- person on the planet. Obvious example: Hitler's holocaust; it was a terrible series of events that almost no one in their right mind would classify as anything other than evil. Truly these events could only classify as not only crimes against humanity but the very progenitors of the idea. However, there are people in central africa or the eastern side of the himalayan mountains or central south america who could not realistically lay claim to any kind of harm because of those events. They had no family involved in either the events themselves or either side in the surrounding war. They don't likely know anyone that did. To them it's nothing but an unpleasant piece of european history of which they may never have even heard.

Fantasy and religious evil is something altogether different. It is a constant, insidious, pervasive darkness that exists outside the minds and deeds of mortal men. It is not individual acts of horror and corruption but the very essence of corruption and horror itself. It is poison and disease to the world as a whole beyond any idea of rationale. It is devils and dark gods and magic radiation that makes people do bad things without recourse to logic or empathy or anything else that might give an affected person pause over such deeds. Evil harms all mortal life simply by existing and there simply is no real world analogue that comes close.




Huh. I figured the whole "due to the dead" thing would factor in somewhat.

I don't quite get your meaning. Due to some sort of respect for the dead idea? If so, that's one easily circumscribed even in fantasy settings where evil is a real and palpable thing. The living can wish for their body to be of some use after their death even in worlds where the undead aren't a real thing; see RL and donating your body to science and organ donorship.


I don't see why you can't talk about souls without necessarily getting churchy about it, though. I just want someone to say "I personally find it objectionable" rather than "this book finds it objectionable" when making objections to things.

You seem to be misconstruing certain elements of theology and philosophy. The two are interrelated.

When I say that it is a theological matter I say so in the sense that the soul is an inherently theological concept. The idea was born from the idea of existence beyond that of the physical body. Any number of ideas about what that existence entails sprang up around the concept and were the foundations of -all- religions unless one of them happens to be right and there is something beyond this existence that we all know and humanity's existence serves some greater purpose. Per forum rules, we won't go into that.

The point remains that the soul itself is a theological concept that is inherently tied to the concepts of afterlives, deities, and the ideas of real, palpable good and evil.

If you make it a given that real good and evil are not things in their own right but simply ideas and that <deity>/<belief system> says so isn't good enough reasoning then you have no solid ground to argue from left. Some people might object from the sheer squick factor but that's pretty much it.

tgva8889
2015-10-27, 11:38 PM
"The soul" has actually been expanded upon so greatly that many texts exist which discuss it and are philosophical rather than religious. Philosophers have asked many questions about the soul, and one could wager that more philosophers have written treatises about the soul than priests. In fact, quite a many religious writers are, in fact, considered philosophers and are studied as if they were philosophers, in many cases taking their religious affiliation or the manner in which they discussed the soul with a grain of salt. One need only go to Plato to begin finding references to the soul as an element of man, and there are many others who discuss the idea of the soul in an entirely philosophical/metaphysical way, especially in the Enlightenment era. The soul may be associated with religion, but philosophy has a great deal to do with our understanding of it.

This topic raised an interesting question in my mind: all spells that allow for resurrection require the spirit of the deceased to be willing to be resurrected to work. Would a spell that didn't have this requirement be evil?

goto124
2015-10-28, 02:03 AM
... weren't we talking about literal souls that can be interacted with, such as via spells (Speak with Dead, Raise Dead,Resurrection, etc)?

Okay, maybe not. But necromancy (and the fantasy genre in general) does tend to assume souls are actual stuff.

Reboot
2015-10-29, 07:15 PM
This assumption is the entire argument. If there are forms of necromantic reanimation that are non-Evil, then a necromancer who only uses non-Evil necromancy and is otherwise Good is Good. If the process of reanimation is inextricably linked to doing something else that is always Evil, then the distinction is meaningless.

That said, I do think creating any kind of mindless undead is quite disrespectful to the person whose body you just reanimated, viewing the person's body as nothing more than a tool for whomever possesses it.

Real life: What about organ donation? Limb donation? Face transplants? [Hell, someone's making serious noises about trying a full-head transplant. Perhaps better phrased as a "body transplant".]

Are these evil? Especially with an opt-out (rather than opt-in) system?


Why does this nonsense persist after 15 years? I can't speak for pathfinder but 3.X categorically does -not- say, at any point, that necromancy is evil.

Necromancy is a whole school of magic full of spells that have nothing to do with undeath and the majority of which are not labeled as evil in any way.

The only thing that's labeled, very specifically, as evil is the creation of new undead. Not controlling them or empowering them, just creating them. That's it. The spells that do so just happen to be in the necromancy school.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm

Note that this is a spell largely useful for triage, yet - figuring out who needs treatment most urgently...


7. All undead created retain the same mental faculties they had at the prime of their lived lifespan, and this will not deteriorate or advance as time goes by. Sapient individuals remain sapient, sentient individuals remain sentient.
Examples:

A "teenaged" undead has the mind of a teenager, and will continue to have an adolescent mind centuries down the line. [...]

As with Quertus above, I have severe doubts about this being A Good Thing. Indeed, I would say this raises severe questions as to whether they can honestly be described as sapient/sentient, rather than constructs following fixed programming...

goto124
2015-10-29, 07:41 PM
Non-sapient undead have the advantage of allowing the soul to continue sleeping. Why would creating mindless undead be eviler than minded undead anyway? If anything, non-sapient makes it less evil to make these undead do work. Probably also why they make great minions - it's okay for the good heros to kill them!

In real life, we don't really have a distinction between 'soul' and 'body'. In a fantasy world though?

I'm not sure where the 'it's disrespectful to disturb a dead body' thing comes from. Maybe it's because dead bodies are creepy (for good reason - they can carry lots of diseases and maggots and such). Or maybe it emphasizes how death is a significant, important, sacred part of life.

Still, not all societies have to think reanimation is evil or rude.

Mando Knight
2015-10-29, 09:43 PM
Real life: What about organ donation? Limb donation? Face transplants? [Hell, someone's making serious noises about trying a full-head transplant. Perhaps better phrased as a "body transplant".]

Are these evil? Especially with an opt-out (rather than opt-in) system?

Death or surgical injury are not what I meant by "inextricably tied to doing something else that is always Evil"... making the most of someone's incidental death is not doing Evil. I meant that if the reanimation itself isn't evil but the process is (for example, if the only known method of creating undead is by binding a larval Always-Evil Demon to its body and soul, and doing so happens to be part of the life cycle of that kind of Demon), then the difference between the reanimation itself and the causal ritual is pointless pedantry.

Reboot
2015-10-30, 07:17 PM
I was looking more at the "...viewing the person's body as nothing more than a tool for whomever possesses it" part.

LudicSavant
2015-10-30, 07:24 PM
If necromancy is basically just immortality, either everyone is doing it or you need a good reason why not everyone is doing it. And ain't nobody's got time for that "woe is me, immortality is really a curse in and of itself" nonsense. :smallyuk:

Mando Knight
2015-10-30, 08:53 PM
I was looking more at the "...viewing the person's body as nothing more than a tool for whomever possesses it" part.

Real-life organ donation and transplants have a fundamentally different quality than animating someone's body as your own servant (as mindless undead would be), and even an opt-out system allows people at least a nominal choice over the fate of their bodily integrity. Making mindless undead out of the corpse of someone who consented to the action is at least less disrespectful than doing it without asking at all.