Poll: Necromancy morality question (edited)

[Arina Love]

Choice 1 of course. Dead people don't care about anything so enlisting them as undead army is awesome and not a problem. In fact i want to be necromancer myself!

 

[Denamic]

In the face of death, fuck morality.
Besides, I'd go for using corpses to defend a town even if the town guard could have done so themselves.
Saves lives.

 

[BanZeus]

There isn't enough information to make a decision. Are there other towns nearby where the people can take shelter/set up defenses? Is this unnamed threat likely to follow us if we evacuate? What, historically, has been the reaction to towns that raise an undead army?

Regardless, it seems to me that raising an undead army to defend your town is a lot like putting venomous snakes in your house to solve your rat problem.

 

[Jedoro]

Option 1, because I don't think I'd mind being brought back from the dead to protect my grandchildren.

 

[Smeatza]

Any option but the third requires gambling with peoples lives.
We would flee the city, and I would be like Liu Bei, with my people willingly following such a virtuous leader to a new home.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Considering that I would most likely be the Necromancer in this setting, I'd tell the towns people 'Suck it up'. If they tried to bring me to 'justice' or some such thing (Those consequences you mentioned), well...my undead army is about to get a new wave of recruits.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I think my late father would find the idea of him leading a zombie zerg rush quite awesome therefore I would do it.

 

[Victim of Progress]

I don't know about you guys, but that awfully reminds me of one of the "Battle for Wesnoth" campaigns. Descent into Darkness, I believe, where a similar situation to that happened. But yeah, I would use the necromancer's help

 

[ShindoL Shill]

Option one. And I would assign at least two guards to the necromancer to
1. Stop the enemy killing him, and (I assume) the undead and
2. If it looks like he's going to betray us, they can just kill him.

What's the point in sacrificing people when we're literally sitting on a small army?

 

[HellenicWarrior]

Option 3. Everyone survives, stuff the town! And I don't trust necromancy...

 

[winginson]

Option 1 - Just remember to have a backup plan because necromacers are always evil and will then screw you over to gain more power.

Captcha - "Too Late"
Oh. Crap.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Indeed, and your choice to not use necromancy is like killing an innocent passer-by in order to stop an unrelated temporary inconvenience for a corpse. You're allowing someone's rights to be violated either way, but one right is far more important than the other.

If you just boil down the choices, what you really get is this:

1. Enslave some corpses temporarily without permission.

2. Kill 75% of an entire innocent town and yourself.

3. Kill a small amount of innocents, and force the other 99% (or whatever percentage) of the town to leave their homes and possessions for good, and become refugees on the run from an army.

Just because you're committing one atrocity more indirectly than another doesn't make it any different in effect. I can't personally see how any rational being could choose anything but the first choice, as while it's certainly bad, it's by far the lesser evil of the choices you are presented with.

You are over-simplifying the situation, which takes out the complicated bits, which is what makes it a moral dilemma in the first place.

Okay, let's boil it down to 3 groups. You have the invading army, let's call them A, you have the townsfolk, let's call them T, and you have the corpse-people, let's call them C. As it stands, T's rights are being threatened/violated by A. Therefore, it is well within T's rights to violate the rights of A to prevent them from continuing to violate/threaten T's rights (but only insofar as their actions do so. You can't stop them, and then go ahead and torture the captured survivors, because at that point A no longer poses a threat to T). But what T can't do (and be justified in doing so), is violate the rights of C to stop A. If they were to do so, C (and any group that isn't T, really) is entirely justified in acting in such a way that prevents T from violating C, even if it requires violating T to do so.

Short version, corpse-people have nothing to do with this, so leave them out of it. The townsfolk's problems are their own, and they have no right to violate the rights of others (except the original rights-threatening group) as a means of protection.

I'd bet the innocent people had nothing to do with it, but now they've got an invading army on their hands. Just because you are driving them out of their home indirectly (i.e. by not stopping the invading army) doesn't mean you are not violating their rights. Sure, it might let you have less of a guilty conscience if you do it that way, but it's still wrong.

You're right, in that the townsfolk shouldn't have the right to to violate the rights of the corpses, but the invading army shouldn't have the right to drive the townsfolk out of their homes either. No matter what you do someone's rights get trampled on unjustly (because presumably, they did not bring this invasion upon themselves), and you have been given the ability to decide exactly which right is violated. Why wouldn't you choose to violate the right that has by far the least importance?

It's not fair that the corpses have to be animated without permission, but it's a hell of a lot more fair than the town of innocent people being killed or driven from their homes.

But the thing is, just because you have the power to make it 'the lesser of two evils', doesn't mean you should. I mean, it isn't like no-one's rights are being violated, and you are being forced (by some evil mastermind or something) to make one group's rights be violated, or the evil person will violate both groups' rights. A situation like that would be okay, because then you don't have any of this extra complication stuff, it's just A<B<A+B.

But what you are proposing is like if the government saw the atrocities in African countries and decided the only solution was to enslave its own populace (though in this case the populace has absolutely nothing to do with it, in any way, shape or form). I don't care how bad things get, just because someone has the power to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do, even if it results in less harm overall. The thing about rights is that the individual believes that they should never be violated for any reason, insofar as that group is not violating the rights of another. So yeah, necromancy would save a lot of harm, but it would violate rights which shouldn't be violated. Utilitarianism only gets you so far.

 

[T0BB0]

Accept the help of the necromancer and raise the undead army. Then, use this undead army to slaughter the townspeople, and raise them to bolster your undead forces even more. Use this incredible, fearless, painless and sleepless army of death to demoralise, decimate and destroy the invading army, utilising their corpses to begin creating a truly world-dominating corpse force.

I call this option D. D for Death, as it is the only inevitability, the only thing that you can never prevent, and to control this inevitability... To have such power... He... Hehe... Hehehahahaha! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!

 

[Frission]

The fact that the necromancer is ASKING you rather politely means that he's trustworthy. I doubt anyone would be as queasy if the mage just set people on fire, so what's the problem?

captcha: Panic stations
I ... don't know what to think about that.

 

[tthor]

It really depends on how the necromancy works; if the people being brought back have any sense or their former selves, such as any of their former thoughts or memories, recognizing their name, etc, i wouldn't do it. However, if the zombies were basically brain dead, and the necromancer merely inserted enough intelligence sso they know how and who to fight, then I think i would do it; a lot of people in the town would probably hate me for it, but if it is the only way to protect the city and it's people, then I will have to make the call.

 

[Amaury_games]

Option 1 sounds good but of course you know it requires trusting a necromancer which first off is a terrible idea. Then even if they don't screw you over using the zombies and raised enemy soldiers the town's people might not react well and do something rash like burn them at the stake, then you've got a big ol'curse hanging over your town.

Defending the town alone is the right choice if you had a chance of winning, but here you've given a certain outcome that we'd lose. With 100% foresight then evacuation is the only choice.

This. I thought a lot before choosing to evacuate instead of accepting help, but not knowing the Necromancer's true reasons for helping and being there, sounds like he/she could very well have manipulated the city into thinking he/she was a savior (maybe he/she summoned the menace that's attacking the town right now in order to force me to accept his/her help, which would leave him/her with an army of undead that he/she didn't promise to let go when all is over). He/She might think he/she has the upper hand because time is running out, but as I don't like being manipulated, I choose to evacuate the city now, than later when he/she betrays me. It's very suspicious that he/she just happened to be there in our time of need. I don't believe he/she is evil because he/she is a Necromancer. It's just too convinient for him/her.
Wow, I guess i'm a lot more paranoid than I thought I was!

 

[Amaury_games]

Option 1 - Just remember to have a backup plan because necromacers are always evil and will then screw you over to gain more power.

Captcha - "Too Late"
Oh. Crap.

Loved your Captcha with your reasoning!

 

[DEAD34345]

I'd bet the innocent people had nothing to do with it, but now they've got an invading army on their hands. Just because you are driving them out of their home indirectly (i.e. by not stopping the invading army) doesn't mean you are not violating their rights. Sure, it might let you have less of a guilty conscience if you do it that way, but it's still wrong.

You're right, in that the townsfolk shouldn't have the right to to violate the rights of the corpses, but the invading army shouldn't have the right to drive the townsfolk out of their homes either. No matter what you do someone's rights get trampled on unjustly (because presumably, they did not bring this invasion upon themselves), and you have been given the ability to decide exactly which right is violated. Why wouldn't you choose to violate the right that has by far the least importance?

It's not fair that the corpses have to be animated without permission, but it's a hell of a lot more fair than the town of innocent people being killed or driven from their homes.

But the thing is, just because you have the power to make it 'the lesser of two evils', doesn't mean you should. I mean, it isn't like no-one's rights are being violated, and you are being forced (by some evil mastermind or something) to make one group's rights be violated, or the evil person will violate both groups' rights. A situation like that would be okay, because then you don't have any of this extra complication stuff, it's just A<B<A+B.

But what you are proposing is like if the government saw the atrocities in African countries and decided the only solution was to enslave its own populace (though in this case the populace has absolutely nothing to do with it, in any way, shape or form). I don't care how bad things get, just because someone has the power to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do, even if it results in less harm overall. The thing about rights is that the individual believes that they should never be violated for any reason, insofar as that group is not violating the rights of another. So yeah, necromancy would save a lot of harm, but it would violate rights which shouldn't be violated. Utilitarianism only gets you so far.

Hm... well I actually see where you're coming from a lot better now, but it hasn't changed my mind. Complete utilitarianism wouldn't be a good thing, but in this specific case where the rights that are being weighed against each other are so clearly unbalanced I'd still say it's the far better thing to do. To me, not using those corpses for this reason is akin to not saving a dying man because you'd have to shove some innocent bystander out of the way to get to him. The corpses are only appropriated temporarily, and their previous owners (clearly) aren't using them any more, whereas the citizens of the town will have their entire lives destroyed if they're not outright murdered, all to prevent a temporary and minor annoyance for people who are already dead.

 

[Amaury_games]

Oh! I might add that if I had the power of Necromancy myself, I would totally use that to win the fight (of course, I'd also have the knowledge that this wouldn't create a worse problem - I would send the dead back to sleep when the fight was over). I'd deal later with the angry citizens, but I'd also remind them that they were only angry because they were still alive, instead of happy and dead. I'd also remind them that they could be happy and alive, since most casualties were only the bodies of the dead, which are now back in their place. Honestly, the only harm I see done is to the people that make a fuss about harming a bunch of corpses (mind you, raising them from the grave is not rescuing their souls from the afterlife, but is merely giving them A life in order for them to obey me), and these people don't seem to be thinking about all the people from the village that would've died had I not done what I did, and they didn't have any better suggestions.