Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9221358" data-attributes="member: 6790260">TBH, depends on method and technique.Good enchanters use magic to avoid killing people, and do their best not to cause other, similarly horrible forms of harm. Wicked enchanters turn the minds of others into their playthings, forcing them to dance to whatever tune strikes their fancy. Both use a power that may fundamentally violate another's mind, but the former does so only with care and out of a desire to avoid other, irrevocable evils; the latter does it eagerly, cruelly, not because it is needed but because it is powerful or gratifying.Perhaps we can make the same argument about necromancy. Any form of necromancy which actually controls souls or transforms existing sapient beings is pretty clearly a horrific violation. Likewise, intentionally creating any whole-cloth undead that are infectious (like vampires or shadows), or which inherently damage the living world purely by their presence through corrupting auras or the like, is pretty clearly doing something evil. If, however, you have a necromancer who respects the dead, making deals with them or using only non-sapient remains or the like and emphatically never creating the really nasty types, then sure, I think they could fall into the morally-grey area of &quot;pragmatic recycler&quot; rather than &quot;horrid corrupter.&quot; Especially if, as with the above, it is undertaken (heh) only with appropriate forethought, pursuing a relatively noble end.Both, I think, are clearly getting up to some Dirty Business that should raise some eyebrows for more squeaky-clean party members (assuming there are any), but not enough to cause a group rift over it unless someone has a very specific belief or prohibition against either thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9221358, member: 6790260"] TBH, depends on method and technique. Good enchanters use magic to avoid killing people, and do their best not to cause other, similarly horrible forms of harm. Wicked enchanters turn the minds of others into their playthings, forcing them to dance to whatever tune strikes their fancy. Both use a power that may fundamentally violate another's mind, but the former does so only with care and out of a desire to avoid other, irrevocable evils; the latter does it eagerly, cruelly, not because it is needed but because it is powerful or gratifying. Perhaps we can make the same argument about necromancy. Any form of necromancy which actually controls souls or [I]transforms[/I] existing sapient beings is pretty clearly a horrific violation. Likewise, intentionally creating any whole-cloth undead that are infectious (like vampires or shadows), or which inherently damage the living world purely by their presence through corrupting auras or the like, is pretty clearly doing something evil. If, however, you have a necromancer who respects the dead, making deals with them or using only non-sapient remains or the like and emphatically never creating the really nasty types, then sure, I think they could fall into the morally-grey area of "pragmatic recycler" rather than "horrid corrupter." Especially if, as with the above, it is undertaken (heh) only with appropriate forethought, pursuing a relatively noble end. Both, I think, are clearly getting up to some Dirty Business that should raise some eyebrows for more squeaky-clean party members (assuming there are any), but not enough to cause a group rift over it unless someone has a very specific belief or prohibition against either thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification