Poll: Necromancy morality question (edited)
- Thread starter kommando367
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, but the corpse-people aren't (/weren't) the ones violating the rights to life of the townsfolk. If the dead people had somehow been responsible for the invading army, then it would be fair to violate their rights to right the wrongs they had committed. But because they presumably didn't, it's like enslaving an innocent passerby to stop an unrelated mugging.Lunncal said:
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.Biosophilogical said:
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.
Have you been looking at my current Dread Necromancer character from the D&D game I am currently playing!?!?kommando367 said:
Because that is exactly what he would do!!!
He would offer help to the one in charge of the town. I would explain the logistics of the battle and that this is the most tactically sound option.
If they question my intent I would show them the rules I abide by, which if people are interested in reading I can post in this thread.
-Edit- I would also offer to rebury those raised and (without an ironic smirk) offer to resanctify the grounds if it would put their mind at ease. I would also dig those graves myself. It would be possible by dismissing the energies that allow them to move.
I would also ask if I could raise those that tried to destroy this town and get them to fight in defense of others.
Seeing as necromancy's actually possible, I'd most likely be a necromancer. So I wouldn't need his help to raise the army of undead.
If I wasn't, however, I'd accept his help. Of course, I'd keep him under guard to protect him from the citizens if they got cross, plus they could kill him if he got out of hand.
And once the battle was over, I'd want to become his apprentice.
If I wasn't, however, I'd accept his help. Of course, I'd keep him under guard to protect him from the citizens if they got cross, plus they could kill him if he got out of hand.
And once the battle was over, I'd want to become his apprentice.
Evacuate.
Ok, so, here's the way I see it, Necromancers are usually pretty dubious, now I'm sure there's loads of nice necromancers out there, but the general image is tarnished, you know? Even if we have full assurance they're not at all evil and planning to wander off, how do we know the enemy aren't capable of pulling some trick out of their arses, like some kind of anti-necromancy mummified cheese-slab? These things are more common than you'd think!
But, hey, let's assume that we've somehow beaten off the Menacing Hobgoblins with or without the necromancers help, what then? Will the necromancer stay? I wouldn't expect it. Even so, we aren't able to defend ourselves against the inevitable next attack, sure, the Menacing Hobgoblins are defeated, but now the Irate Kobolds are capitalizing on the sudden power vacuum to become the dominant force in the region, if we didn't accept the necromancers help,we've lost most of our townsfolk, and couldn't survive another attack. If we accept the necromancer help, then they leave, we're back at square one, and if the necromancer stays... well, there's a finite number of serviceable corpses in the graveyard, and only one way to get more of them.
It's a no-win situation, cutting your losses and getting out with what you can is the best option here. (Well, actually, no, the best option is appealing to the Lord of the Land for military aid, you know, that guy you pay Tithes to for exactly this reason? Surprised that wasn't one of the options tbh!)
...of course, it's kind of a moot point, I find I'm usually the one doing the raidin' and lootin' in these sorts of situations. Remember folks, pillage then burn!
Ok, so, here's the way I see it, Necromancers are usually pretty dubious, now I'm sure there's loads of nice necromancers out there, but the general image is tarnished, you know? Even if we have full assurance they're not at all evil and planning to wander off, how do we know the enemy aren't capable of pulling some trick out of their arses, like some kind of anti-necromancy mummified cheese-slab? These things are more common than you'd think!
But, hey, let's assume that we've somehow beaten off the Menacing Hobgoblins with or without the necromancers help, what then? Will the necromancer stay? I wouldn't expect it. Even so, we aren't able to defend ourselves against the inevitable next attack, sure, the Menacing Hobgoblins are defeated, but now the Irate Kobolds are capitalizing on the sudden power vacuum to become the dominant force in the region, if we didn't accept the necromancers help,we've lost most of our townsfolk, and couldn't survive another attack. If we accept the necromancer help, then they leave, we're back at square one, and if the necromancer stays... well, there's a finite number of serviceable corpses in the graveyard, and only one way to get more of them.
It's a no-win situation, cutting your losses and getting out with what you can is the best option here. (Well, actually, no, the best option is appealing to the Lord of the Land for military aid, you know, that guy you pay Tithes to for exactly this reason? Surprised that wasn't one of the options tbh!)
...of course, it's kind of a moot point, I find I'm usually the one doing the raidin' and lootin' in these sorts of situations. Remember folks, pillage then burn!
Assuming that the Necromancer is a chill guy, of course I'd accept his help and raise those bodies. I'll deal with the townspeople later (probably by telling them that if I hadn't raised granny smith from the grave, he'd have joined her) but choice #1 is obviously the best choice.
If the necromancer is a bad guy, then I'd just kill him. Necromancers are pretty weak wizards in my mind, unless they have golems or large constructs.
If the necromancer is a bad guy, then I'd just kill him. Necromancers are pretty weak wizards in my mind, unless they have golems or large constructs.
You eastern folk are ridiculous. Clearly, medicine is not your strong suit if you are still catching diseases from the dead. And the dead are meant to be properly enslaved, not allowed into the workforce.Bertylicious said:
And Zombies are the feral beasts that seek nothing more than to feast on living flesh. I work with undead. Nice folk, if you can get their attention, very obedient; but I digress. And my daughter is one of those "things", so I say you watch your mouth.
You are over-simplifying the situation, which takes out the complicated bits, which is what makes it a moral dilemma in the first place.Lunncal said:
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 would go with option 1
However as others have already said I would only agree once the Necromancer has made a contract (magically binding if possible). I would also order the undead to be stationed outside the town walls (or boundaries), or for them to straight up attack the invaders. If possible I would also incorporate the necromancer into the town by offering him a job as teacher of the necromantic arts to potential townsfolk in case of future attack (and if that did happen I would make sure there would be more than one taught necromancy in case one gets ambitious).
Another thing: What if instead of animating the already dead I got the necromancer to animate those who die in the attack/defence of the town. So that everyone who dies would just get back up and keep fighting. That way only those who consent (or were attacking the town) would be animated and we would pretty much be guaranteed victory with no civilian (not counting militia volunteers) casualties.
However as others have already said I would only agree once the Necromancer has made a contract (magically binding if possible). I would also order the undead to be stationed outside the town walls (or boundaries), or for them to straight up attack the invaders. If possible I would also incorporate the necromancer into the town by offering him a job as teacher of the necromantic arts to potential townsfolk in case of future attack (and if that did happen I would make sure there would be more than one taught necromancy in case one gets ambitious).
Another thing: What if instead of animating the already dead I got the necromancer to animate those who die in the attack/defence of the town. So that everyone who dies would just get back up and keep fighting. That way only those who consent (or were attacking the town) would be animated and we would pretty much be guaranteed victory with no civilian (not counting militia volunteers) casualties.
Option 3. Understand, I don't do option one more out of concern over the necromancers motives than any moral reservations. Though, if I can choose my own plan, I would evacuate the civilians and use ambushes and guerrilla tactics to destroy the enemy as they tried to take the city. It would be much easier to destroy the enemy in this fashion, but I would still have an evacuation plan in place for the soldiers to slip out of the city in small groups as well.
Wouldn't option 2 just give the Necromancer an even more substantial potential army for later use, one including our own viewpoint character in this scenario?
Even if the Necromancer kept the corpses, isn't that a small price to pay to save all of those living in the village? What are they going to do but rot away eventually, anyway? I'd rather see my dead loved ones do something productive with their undeath than push up daisies.
Even if the Necromancer kept the corpses, isn't that a small price to pay to save all of those living in the village? What are they going to do but rot away eventually, anyway? I'd rather see my dead loved ones do something productive with their undeath than push up daisies.
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.Biosophilogical said:
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.
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!
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.
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.
