Poll: Necromancy morality question (edited)

[SpectacularWebHead]

Bring me my Zombies.

After the battle is won, I shall destroy the necromancer and command his undead horde! MWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

*Cracks Knuckles*

Well, the dead aren't doing much down there. More bodies - possibly bodies immune to pain and fear - are always helpful. At the cost of offending a few people, I see no reason not to go for it.

Blatently option 3. The ends never justify the means and you'd just end up with zombie plauge and camp vampires everywhere; a fate worse than death.

You confuse undead for zombies, Vampires are not necromancer's slaves and you just flat out have no faith in Necromancers. Maybe you're from out east, and I'd understand, there are no good necromancers there, but you've gotta assume that you've got a competent necromancer on your side.

...something tells me you may be a little biased


This reminds me of the classic, nay, vintage WHFRP scenario "Something Rotten in Kislev". 4th book in the original WHFRP campaign the players had been possibly somewhat unwillingly deputised into the knights panther and sent off to an area of Kislev to investigate some shit that I forget about. When they get there they find that a local town has taken to raising the dead to use to work the fields and as soldiers after some sort of catastrophe that again escapes me decimated the local population. Your (possibly forced) vows when deputised tie you to wiping out the undead but doing so will leave the town too dangerously low on manpower to continue on. There's some other stuff with hobgoblins and some weird Warhammerised Russian folk tales but it's the town section that stood out for me as was always the case with old school WHFRP, they did inter human issues very well.


OT: #1. Just be careful to have someone close by to dispatch the necromancer if they try to screw us over afterwards.

 

[KINGBeerZ]

I don't believe that desecrating the dead is a good idea, that being said respecting your dead won't do you much good if you have to join them to do it.

 

[Whispering Cynic]

Accept help, of course. There is no such thing as "sanctity" of a corpse. It's just rotting meat and bones, that's all. It's not like you're enslaving the dead people's souls or something...

 

[Gitty101]

Choice 1, accept the help. It's a simple choice, use the dead or die yourself. The Necromancer was probably planning to raise them at some point anyway, so they may as well be used to defend you. Plus, it's not as if you aren't in the same boat anyway, since some of your family were buried there too. If all else fails you can make a contingency plan for the Necromancer and his Zombie horde...

 

[Tipsy Giant]

When you die, that's it, lights out, no more anything. So some bones and flesh that USED to be your family getting blown apart doesn't matter, they aren't family anymore.
If you or your towns people die that's it, gone forever....pointless. Only real answer is A

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Well I would take choice 1 for these reasons:

- I don't believe in the sanctity of corpses (they are bones and meat that we bury in holes in the ground, get over it) and regardless of what the people in my town who object to it think, they can't deny that all those dead relatives saved their life...

- I don't want to die or evacuate my home.

Plus, you don't really know what the Necromancer's motives are.

- Think about it; if the necromancer had evil motives - why the hell would he need MY permission to raise an army of the dead and kill everybody? I'll take his help thx

 

[Bertylicious]

*Cracks Knuckles*

Well, the dead aren't doing much down there. More bodies - possibly bodies immune to pain and fear - are always helpful. At the cost of offending a few people, I see no reason not to go for it.

Blatently option 3. The ends never justify the means and you'd just end up with zombie plauge and camp vampires everywhere; a fate worse than death.

You confuse undead for zombies, Vampires are not necromancer's slaves and you just flat out have no faith in Necromancers. Maybe you're from out east, and I'd understand, there are no good necromancers there, but you've gotta assume that you've got a competent necromancer on your side.

Everyone knows that the undead spread disease and undermine the native, living, populaces' employment oppurtunities.

Before you know where you've got zombies (I refuse to use the ridiculous politically correct term "reanimated persons") hanging around the town square intimidating the children of native, living, good people. Now I don't know how you do things in the West, Mr, but I ask the other people of this forum; would you want one of those undead things slobbering all over your daughter?

 

[Nerexor]

Option 1 is tactically the best choice for dealing with the immediate problem. It just spawns the later problem of, now there's a necromancer with a lot of undead at his disposal...

If possible I would accept their aid on some kind of magical contract that they will actually honor (doing this without offending them would be tricky... but hey, you're the head dude/dudette for a reason). That or look into zombie defenses that the layman can use in case the necromancer attacks with their zombies. (I'm thinking more Dresden Files magic here, where anyone can do things like make a lesser circle that will keep out or hinder magical constructs [e.g.: undead], likewise where if a magic user swears an oath on their power, breaking it will actually reduce said power for the legalistic way of ensuring cooperation).

Failing those tricks: get your best hunters, give them good bows and arrows. Tell them to keep the necro in sight, and if zombies start attacking, fill the necromancer with arrows.

Before you know where you've got zombies (I refuse to use the ridiculous politically correct term "reanimated persons") hanging around the town square intimidating the children of native, living, good people. Now I don't know how you do things in the West, Mr, but I ask the other people of this forum; would you want one of those undead things slobbering all over your daughter?

Not to mention the diminishing property values. The second anyone hears about the dead rising in this town it becomes impossible to sell the land. You don't see anyone buying up those farms in Tristram, do you?

 

[loc978]

Kinda depends, does this necromancer have a reputation? How progressive or religious is this fantasy world? Are we talkin' D&D necromancy here, or A Song of Ice and Fire necromancy?

Basically, if this is a fantasy world where convenient magic is the norm, and the necromancer has no real reputation beyond "that weird guy who lives in the shack over there"... I'd take the help.

However, if this is a more dogmatic, gritty medieval fantasy world... if I were in charge, I'd probably be a religious man, so I'd most likely burn the necromancer at the stake and evacuate the city.

captchasolve: like the dickens. Damn right.

 

[jurnag12]

Sure, why not? They're DEAD, they're not gonna protest, and anyone who puts the 'respect' a lump of rotten flesh and bones is given ahead of their own lives should be used as meat shields.

This would, of course, be somewhat different if the Necromancer has a seedy reputation or is just plain, obviously evil.

 

[Nerexor]

option 3.

the first one seems good. but there is no guaranty that the necromancer will not use your fallen enemies and your belowed dead against you.

necros do love power.

I'm thinking more Dresden Files magic here, where anyone can do things like make a lesser circle that will keep out or hinder magical constructs [e.g.: undead],

*zombie grabs pole, spear or any pointy thing*
*zombie throws it into circle*
since the spear, stone, pole or pointy thing is not magical, it goes through the circle.
*you are dead, trapped in a magical cicle that should have protected you from magical constructs*

Orite, DF zombies can use weapons. Well. That plan just got shot to shit.

 

[templar1138a]

The idea of a benevolent Necromancer is one I came up with a while ago and have wanted to make into a D&D character at some point.

Desecration be damned, an undead army DEFENDING would be a superb tactic. The undead have no sense of morale, they'll keep fighting. The undead feel no pain, they'll keep fighting. Unless the invading army is also undead, has demons, or holy warriors, they'll be very easy to rout. And if it's the last two, the defenders will need all the help they can get.

And whether you believe in the afterlife or reincarnation is a moot point, because any way you look at it, the soul/conscious mind of the dead person has left the body entirely. Are they really going to care about that rotten husk? If I died - and if there were an afterlife - and I saw that those I'd left behind could use my corpse increase their odds of staying alive, I'd damn well want them to use it. When you get right down to it, it's no different than being an organ donor (which I am).

Now, you raise a fine point about not being able to fully trust the necromancer. For that reason, I'd require him to promise to send the corpses back to their graves once the invaders had been routed. I'd also make sure that he was stationed somewhere he could control his army, but that there were at least two combat-capable people I trusted very much to stay with him (one of them would probably be me), weapons free, in case he decided to break that promise.

 

[Naeras]

I don't see the problem with making dead people save the lives of living ones.

 

[Kiardras]

Depends how the bodies are raised. Does he just bind the bodies of the dead, in which case who cares? Once someone has died the body is just a shell anyway.

Or, does it require the soul to be dragged back from wherever it is and placed in a rotting, tortured existance?

Regardless, IMO, its not really immoral.

Captcha: oontz oontz.

Really?

 

[TechTim]

need a few other options:
1)kill necromancer and run like heck to prevent scenario's 2 and 3
2)refuse necromancer's offer he raises the dead anyway kills whole town and uses graveyard's and your corpses to defend town,
3) after accepting offer he defends town then proceeds to kills everyone anyway

 

[Jolly Co-operator]

Option 1.

A few perturbed citizens is a small price to pay for the safety of the town. And as for the necromancers motives, I may as well trust him. After all, if he really wanted to overrun my city with zombies, he really wouldn't need my permission to do it, he would just do it anyway.

 

[Jonluw]

They're just corpses.
I couldn't give less of a shit if there are a couple of people who don't agree with my actions. If they think my means of fighting are wrong, they're welcome to join the frontlines to fight alongside their families.

The only thing that worries me is the fact that I don't know the necromancer's intentions.
However, if he had evil intentions, he could've just raised the dead without asking me anyways.

 

[verdant monkai]

Hello Escapist people. I have a morality question for you.

An Excellent question one I will be happy to answer I assume I am the mayor or person in charge.

I would choose option two because I would not trust the necromancer as far as I could throw him. He would probably want some twisted form of payment like access to the dead from then on or all the towns first born's or something. Basically NO you can never trust a necromancer, they are trouble.

Option two results in the highest loss of life but I reckon it would be preferable to having no home at all, fleeing into a monster infested wilderness would not be fun.
I would decree that :-
1. Anyone who is able to fight should stay behind to defend the town, all the food and resources should be divided %30 refugee's / %70 defenders.
2. Any residents able to fight and not willing to will be forced to contribute their possessions to the defence, and not be allowed back into the town.
3. I would get extra help by asking neighbouring settlements and hiring mercenary's.
4. After the battle I would begin a restoration project on the town.