Quote from: dragoner;793644You could create a setting where evil is good or whatever, ultimately that's fine, beyond all the reductio ad absurdum arguments about bringing things like the Pope into it or something. The reality check isn't a Ouija board, it is the idea of desecrating graves to perform "magic", which is an agreed upon "evil" according to society, to raising undead monsters, fantasy-wise; which would still fall under "evil".

You could create a setting where everyone, everywhere treats the dead the exact same way and in that setting everyone sees the same set of acts as desecration. That setting wouldn't be anything like any historical version of our earth nor would it be like many fantasy settings. But you could do that. (It sounds like you have, in fact created such a setting.) I could envision that it would be fun to play undead hunter PCs in that setting.

But this setting you've created clearly conflicts with the premise of this thread, which makes wonder why you keep posting.

Obviously I have touched a nerve. Doesn't bother me. However, arguing from the point of 'in reality it is evil, but in your fantasy it is good'; is perhaps the worst argument I have ever read.

If Necromancy is defined by "the communication with, the animation of, or the divination from the physical remains of the dead, or the spirits of the dead" then that's a pretty broad definition and has lots of both fantastical and historical precedents to show that such things could be considered "good", and is pretty obvious, I don't think OHT needs people to tell him shamans talk to ancestor spirits. :rolleyes:

I read the OP as pertaining specifically to the creation of animated dead, undead, or spells that relate to them, which are much more specific and harder to justify unless you assume a complete lack of Capital Good and Evil, which the OP, by its very nature, appears to assume.  I also don't think Dan needs people to tell him that everything's culturally relative. :rolleyes:

Assuming there is such a thing as Good and Evil (you know, not this world, but a fantasy world, oh the imagination hurts!) can the creation of reanimated corpses ever be Good?

Going back to an answer I gave previously, what are you animating the corpse with?  Does the creation of "Undead" assume an evil force, an "Unlife" if you will?  If the cosmology says yes, then creating Undead is an inherently evil act, and controlling or harnessing undead for any purpose would be akin to summoning and binding a demon.  The people saved by the necromancer may think him, but the Priests, Witch Hunters, and even the Gods themselves may not.

If what you are doing is creating a Golem, just using Flesh or Bone, then no, it's not an inherently evil act, but the act of investing something with a simulacrum of life may in itself be a sin, for example, the desire to control the powers of creation is one of the main sins of the Big Bads in Middle Earth.

If the cosmology allows for spirits to inhabit corpses, then I could see a Good Priest summoning the willing spirits of fallen heroes to inhabit their corpses to deal with a threat to the world.  More than likely, this would be more of a limited duration Resurrection or being present as a type of wraith then a Paladin as rotting meat, however.

Quote from: dragoner;793847Obviously I have touched a nerve. Doesn't bother me. However, arguing from the point of 'in reality it is evil, but in your fantasy it is good'; is perhaps the worst argument I have ever read.

You touched a nerve because you came in to take a big fat dump in the thread by using an argument that is logically as bad as an argument gets and despite multiple people pointing out some of your errors you just kept on shitting in the thread.

Arguing (as you are in fact doing) from reality* to what is necessary in a fantasy world makes no sense in this instance. In reality, how one treats the dead properly varies by culture and time period. What is evil in one culture may be neutral or even good in another (and vice versa). Therefore you can't conclude anything from how cultures on earth treat the dead to how fantasy cultures should treat the dead or how they should view necromancy.

Since there are multiple and conflicting ways the dead have been reverenced on earth. To mention just a few ways the dead are treated: we have burial, burning, exposure, mummification, ritual cannabalism, keeping the remains intact vs. mixing the remains of multiple people together vs. scattering the remains individually, secluding the remains away from the dwellings of the living vs. incorporating the remains in the dwellings of the living, the notion of sacred ground vs. no sacred ground, treating in group deaths differently or the same as out group deaths. To then conclude form this plethora of different views on how the dead should be treated that there is only one right way to treat the dead is silly, wrong headed, foolish, and illogical.

To do that you would first have to prove (1) that there is one right way to treat the dead and (2) what that one right way is and why. You haven't even tried doing either of these things. In fact you skipped passed even trying and have simply asserted that somehow you know the answer, whether that knowledge is received through mystical insight, an angel descending to reveal it to you in tongues of fire, mommy and daddy told you so when you were little, you read it on fortune cookie, you found the answer in a box of cracker jacks, or some other way you haven't yet specfied.


What nerve of yours does the mere existence of this thread touch?


* Setting aside that fact that in reality there is no working necromantic magic so the entire point is moot in reality.

I think Lankhmar had an interesting bit that there were many gods worshipped there, but then there were the gods of Lankhmar, mummified dead who would rise up to fight threats to the city.

Well perhaps pathetic was an understatement.

Quote from: dragoner;793805See what I said about moral relativism, dumb asses. "Tolling", ha! exact change please.

 You called yourselves this not I, however; it is fitting. It is descriptive of what you are asking, eg for me to repeat myself.

We didnt ask you to act like a pedantic twat. Im not sure what the hell is possessing you to act like a complete idiot all of a sudden.

Real World Real walking dead Necromancy A: doesnt exist. B: in whatever legends of various faiths, can mean just about anything from bad to good.

Fantasy Necromancy is whatever the designer and/or the GM and/or the players make of it. Pissing on that and singing "la la la your all wrong - its evil!" is way up there on the stupomitron gauge.

Quote from: Will;793861I think Lankhmar had an interesting bit that there were many gods worshipped there, but then there were the gods of Lankhmar, mummified dead who would rise up to fight threats to the city.

Most of the gods worshiped in Lankhmar where called the gods in Lankhmar, but in addition to them there were the gods of Lankmhar and they were feared rather than worshipped. The gods of Lankhmar were spooky sorcery wielding liche/mummy types. They definitely seemed like necromantic ancestor worship (where worship means placation of the things you are really, really afraid of).

Quote from: Bren;793859You touched a nerve because you came in to take a big fat dump in the thread by using an argument that is logically as bad as an argument gets and despite multiple people pointing out some of your errors you just kept on shitting in the thread.

Arguing (as you are in fact doing) from reality* to what is necessary in a fantasy world makes no sense in this instance. In reality, how one treats the dead properly varies by culture and time period. What is evil in one culture may be neutral or even good in another (and vice versa). Therefore you can't conclude anything from how cultures on earth treat the dead to how fantasy cultures should treat the dead or how they should view necromancy.

Since there are multiple and conflicting ways the dead have been reverenced on earth. To mention just a few ways the dead are treated: we have burial, burning, exposure, mummification, ritual cannabalism, keeping the remains intact vs. mixing the remains of multiple people together vs. scattering the remains individually, secluding the remains away from the dwellings of the living vs. incorporating the remains in the dwellings of the living, the notion of sacred ground vs. no sacred ground, treating in group deaths differently or the same as out group deaths. To then conclude form this plethora of different views on how the dead should be treated that there is only one right way to treat the dead is silly, wrong headed, foolish, and illogical.

To do that you would first have to prove (1) that there is one right way to treat the dead and (2) what that one right way is and why. You haven't even tried doing either of these things. In fact you skipped passed even trying and have simply asserted that somehow you know the answer, whether that knowledge is received through mystical insight, an angel descending to reveal it to you in tongues of fire, mommy and daddy told you so when you were little, you read it on fortune cookie, you found the answer in a box of cracker jacks, or some other way you haven't yet specfied.


What nerve of yours does the mere existence of this thread touch?


* Setting aside that fact that in reality there is no working necromantic magic so the entire point is moot in reality.

^^^ WTF are you on about? Did you even read the OP? And that is for your little buddy too. Boo hoo.

Quote from: Omega;793862Well perhaps pathetic was an understatement.



We didnt ask you to act like a pedantic twat. Im not sure what the hell is possessing you to act like a complete idiot all of a sudden.

Real World Real walking dead Necromancy A: doesnt exist. B: in whatever legends of various faiths, can mean just about anything from bad to good.

Fantasy Necromancy is whatever the designer and/or the GM and/or the players make of it. Pissing on that and singing "la la la your all wrong - its evil!" is way up there on the stupomitron gauge.

Pardon my French, but you are a fucking moron, all of you. Read the OP: Raising the dead to do your bidding doesn't exactly seem to be a good act - especially when some undead can steal your life-force.

That's evil. Period. Your motorized goalpost arguments are irrelevant.

Am I "trolling" you with the truth? Maybe you can start #realitygate

:rolleyes:

Quote from: dragoner;793866^^^ WTF are you on about? Did you even read the OP? And that is for your little buddy too. Boo hoo.

Of course I read the OP's post. Did you? Because if you did all you needed to write was: "No it is not possible to have a good aligned necromancer."

Instead of doing that, you have chosen to send multiple posts filled with illlogical gibberish and ranting. The essence of your posts can be summarized as follows "dragoner feels Necromancy is Evil because it is bad and anybody who disagrees is a big meanie, stupid head."

What are you like eight years old or something? Did some grade schooler swipe the real dragoner's password?

I said it is evil and you are having the hissy-fit, obviously. You are wrong and sitting there in your wrongness and crying about it. It's not my job to care.

If you had actually read the op, all your ancillary arguments you would know are pointless, or at least I give you too much credit for, and you aren't that bright.

Quote from: dragoner;793872I said it is evil and you are having the hissy-fit, obviously. You are wrong and sitting there in your wrongness and crying about it. It's not my job to care.

If you had actually read the op, all your ancillary arguments you would know are pointless, or at least I give you too much credit for, and you aren't that bright.

You seem to think these two sentences are equivalent. (Hint: they aren't.)

(1) Raising the dead to do your bidding doesn't exactly seem to be a good act.

(2) Raising the dead to do your bidding is always an evil act.

Anyone with even a 7th grade knowledge of the English language can see that these two sentences don't mean the same thing because some <> all. Someone with a 10th grade knowledge of ethics (or a passing familiarity with the silly world of D&D alignments) would know that some acts are neither good nor evil. Therefore doesn't seem good <> is evil.

Now you may have been confused by the inclusion of the additonal phrase "especially when some undead can steal your life-force." However an astute reader (say one who had passed a high school English class) would notice that "some undead can steal your life-force" does not mean all undead can steal your life-force. And as anyone with even a passing familiarity with D&D or Ray Harryhausen special effects would know undead - such as skeletons - cannot steal anyone's life-force. So in trying to determine if necromancy is always evil, we can ignore that additonal phrase since it doesn't apply to all necromancy but only to the creation of life-force stealing undead such as wights, wraiths, or spectres.

Which now brings us back to the questions that the OP did ask, which was could raising the dead be a good or non-evil act? To this question you have contributed nothing.

What nerve of yours does the mere existence of this thread touch?

Equivalency, relativism, wishy washy-ness; that's your stance remember? Not mine. Good job with your little "junior outrage brigade".

How about you guys explain how 'why don't you answer the real world examples of good necromancy' and 'there is no real world necromancy'?

That should be humorous at least.

Well, at least Dragoner makes me feel like I'm on TBP again. Good times.

When op stated 'is it possible to have a good necromancer? Raising the dead doesn't sound very good' opens up discussion to point out that not all necromancy is raising dead. Which is what a bunch of people did.

Plus examples where undead weren't necessarily evil.