Kindly Necromancers

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

While probably hard for most players to imagine, a society could exist that doesn't put any importance on corpses.

Or as punishment for a crime such as the case with Merlin-1's undead Louisiana road gangs.

"In most places, reanimating a human cadaver is illegal desecration of a corpse. One exception is Louisiana, where "death plus hard labor" sentences are the rule and the skeletons of executed convicts serve on road gangs. During the Vietnam conflict, U.S. Army Black Berets reanimated enemy dead as the controversial "Z company" units." (pg 56)

Realistically I can't see the Louisiana zombie road gangs lasting long. Most denominations of Christianity would be flipping out (what is animating that corpse? A demon!) and the appeal courts wouldn't be happy either (a cruel and unusual punishment ruling would come down like a mountain of bricks)

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

They may consider bodies merely shells for the spirit and therefore no more valuable or sacred than the set of clothes one wore when dying.

It's possible though there would the issue of just what is now animating that shell.

That said I could see the rich going for a type of lichdom especially if liches ala the Boris Karlof Mummy are on the table.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

You know what I meant.

Well, no, actually, I didn't know what you meant. In fact, I'm still not sure that I do.

I write books for Steve Jackson Games. I enjoy doing it, so part of my motive is personal satisfaction, which is about as self-interested as you can get. But part of it is getting paid, and wanting to do books that will earn a return shapes my work. And I think that's self-interested too. And I'm not sure I can see a way in which my work "benefits the common good." It enables people to pursue a hobby that gives them pleasure, but that itself is self-interested behavior on their part. It kind of looks like elephants all the way down. So I think by your criterion, my writing GURPS books might have to be classified as "having crossed the line from good to bad." And I don't think that makes sense. But I'm not able to define the line you're drawing in a way that doesn't imply this.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

While probably hard for most players to imagine, a society could exist that doesn't put any importance on corpses. They may consider bodies merely shells for the spirit and therefore no more valuable or sacred than the set of clothes one wore when dying.

A society that doesn't put any importance on corpses doesn't seem like a society that would invent necromantic corpse reanimation. If there's nothing special about corpses that you perceive then reanimating them should be no different from animating anything built with hinges...much of which would actually be far superior to rotting flesh or dry bones as structural material. Why are dead bodies easier to animate? And what is the thing which is smart enough to take commands and is now running this no longer empty shell?

[Flyndaran]

Like begats like. Corpses are easier to animate, because they resemble living people. "What animates" is trying to define magic/religion, so could be literally anything you want. It doesn't have to be a sapient entity or force with source as our modern physics' minds would assume.

[tanksoldier]

.How would you portray a kindly necromancer?

The Scarred Lands source book “Hollowfaust: City of Necromancers” is probably the best thing going for alternative looks at necromancers.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...f-Necromancers

[TheRealMe]

In my campaign setting, where wizards rule the world, I have a whole culture of necromancers. They are no more good or evil than any other group of people. Creepy, yes. Evil, no.


http://stelio.net/cosgamers/Magesea:..._for_Blackwell

[coronatiger]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, no, actually, I didn't know what you meant. In fact, I'm still not sure that I do.

I write books for Steve Jackson Games. I enjoy doing it, so part of my motive is personal satisfaction, which is about as self-interested as you can get. But part of it is getting paid, and wanting to do books that will earn a return shapes my work. And I think that's self-interested too. And I'm not sure I can see a way in which my work "benefits the common good." It enables people to pursue a hobby that gives them pleasure, but that itself is self-interested behavior on their part. It kind of looks like elephants all the way down. So I think by your criterion, my writing GURPS books might have to be classified as "having crossed the line from good to bad." And I don't think that makes sense. But I'm not able to define the line you're drawing in a way that doesn't imply this.

I would suggest that something that benefits the common good is something that generally increases happiness, well-being or health in the society (or performs a public service), while something is detrimental to the common good if it decreases these things (or hinders a public service). (There are of course gray areas where an action is good for some people while being bad for others.)

Writing books that enable people to pursue their hobby would generally increase happiness (as long as that hobby isn't bad for other people). On the other hand, if one liked and/or got paid for writing books that encourages and enables "bad things" (like an instruction manual for "How to set off a dirty bomb and get away clean"), that would not benefit the common good. (A less extreme example could be writing hateful messages on internet forums - it certainly seems like some people enjoy doing that.)

An action doesn't have to benefit all of society to be considered beneficial for society. Let's say I stand up to give my seat on the bus to an elderly person. Another passenger compliments my good deed, and in the spirit of philosophy, I ask them whether they think my action benefited the common good. Most people would say no, but then I might ask: What if everyone did such things - would that benefit the common good? I suspect they then would say yes. In a city of one million people, if everyone except for one person did it, would it still benefit the common good? What about everyone but two? Three? When would it no longer benefit the common good?

I'm sorry if my rant went off on a tangent, but let me bring it back on topic: If the actions of a necromancer doesn't decrease happiness, well-being or health, or hinders common good deeds, they shouldn't be considered to be evil, even if some people think it's creepy or disgusting. If the general consensus is "when I die, feel free to use my corpse for labor, I don't need it anyway", raising zombies wouldn't be viewed as inherently evil. Think of it this way: In our modern society, giving away one's organs after death is generally approved of, so we don't think ill of the doctors who transplant the organs.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by coronatiger

Think of it this way: In our modern society, giving away one's organs after death is generally approved of, so we don't think ill of the doctors who transplant the organs.

Other people giving away their organs is generally approved of. It's still hard to find enough people willing to sign donor cards, and rather much harder to get their families to agree after death to follow the deceaseds wishes.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Other people giving away their organs is generally approved of. It's still hard to find enough people willing to sign donor cards, and rather much harder to get their families to agree after death to follow the deceaseds wishes.

Eh, it's a bother to actually sign donor cards, largely because most people secretly assume that they are immortal and that anything to do with what happens after their deaths can thus be postponed infinitely.

Here in Iceland, we passed legislation that presumes consent for organ donors, requiring you to expend minuscule effort to opt out if you are bothered by the thought of your mortal remains actually benefiting someone. The legislation was not particularly contentious and no one I know would dream of bothering to opt out, as by definition, by the time it matters, you are incapable of caring.

[AlexanderHowl]

It is easier to find consensus in a nation of ~350,000 people than in a nation nearly one thousand times larger. Iceland is also a relatively homogeneous nation, so it does not have the bigotry issues of the USA (I knew people in the Navy who refused to give blood because it might have benefitted someone of another religion). As they say, more people, more problems.