Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 9227839" data-attributes="member: 2629">You want to look at the real world?&nbsp; In the real world there are still 9 or so places that practice cannibalism.&nbsp;&nbsp; We've used real corpses as movie props.&nbsp; We've used them, as you note, for scientific research and education.&nbsp; We also put them on display at museums ... which tends to be more of a draw for the macabre reasons over the educational ones.&nbsp; Historically, humans built tools out of human bones.&nbsp; In some instances people had to choose between starving to death and eating that that had already passed. Someone decided to do all of these things - so the idea of putting a corpse to use is not so absolutely derided as you suggest.If you learned that two of your friends had been trapped, one perished and the other had to resort to eating the one that had passed to survive - would you feel more pity or outrage?&nbsp; Now go to a fantasy world.&nbsp; There is a wizard.&nbsp; The wizard is with a whole village worth of people that are trapped in a cave in while hiding in the cave.&nbsp; The only hope for the entire village is to clear a path - but the cave is blocked by a cave in - in a long and flooded tunnel.&nbsp; The people can't hold their breath long enough to clear the tunnel.&nbsp; Choice 1.) Everyone suffocates and dies.&nbsp; Choice 2.) Someone volunteers to die so that they can be animated as a zombie and have their corpse be used to clear the path and drain the water.&nbsp; What is the moral choice?&nbsp; If the wizard slew a volunteer and animated them - and then saved the entire village that way - what would the reaction be?&nbsp; Would the volunteer be cursed by the village for contributing to necromancy?&nbsp; Would the wizard be executed for necromancy?&nbsp; Would people just try to pretend it didn't happen?How does that change if the animating of the dead so near their actual village means that the veil between worlds weakens and more undead are likely to spawn?&nbsp; What if only 10% of the village was there and now the entire village is at risk of ghouls appearing and dragging people off?When I was young I was told that animating dead was uniformally evil in D&amp;D.&nbsp; I wasn't sure why, but I decided that I should explain it .. so in my lore, animating undead weakens the veil between the planes of the undead and the Prime - meaning that there is a chance undead spontaneously rise after you animate undead.&nbsp; If you cast animate dead today, a ghoul might spontaneously arise a year from now.&nbsp; So in my campaign, I don't explore this idea that animate dead might not be all evil - because it is inherently evil in my game.&nbsp; But I sometimes regret making it so black and white because there is storytelling to be done there that I shut off by making it so clear.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jgsugden, post: 9227839, member: 2629"] You want to look at the real world? In the real world there are still 9 or so places that practice cannibalism. We've used real corpses as movie props. We've used them, as you note, for scientific research and education. We also put them on display at museums ... which tends to be more of a draw for the macabre reasons over the educational ones. Historically, humans built tools out of human bones. In some instances people had to choose between starving to death and eating that that had already passed. Someone decided to do all of these things - so the idea of putting a corpse to use is not so absolutely derided as you suggest. If you learned that two of your friends had been trapped, one perished and the other had to resort to eating the one that had passed to survive - would you feel more pity or outrage? Now go to a fantasy world. There is a wizard. The wizard is with a whole village worth of people that are trapped in a cave in while hiding in the cave. The only hope for the entire village is to clear a path - but the cave is blocked by a cave in - in a long and flooded tunnel. The people can't hold their breath long enough to clear the tunnel. Choice 1.) Everyone suffocates and dies. Choice 2.) Someone volunteers to die so that they can be animated as a zombie and have their corpse be used to clear the path and drain the water. What is the moral choice? If the wizard slew a volunteer and animated them - and then saved the entire village that way - what would the reaction be? Would the volunteer be cursed by the village for contributing to necromancy? Would the wizard be executed for necromancy? Would people just try to pretend it didn't happen? How does that change if the animating of the dead so near their actual village means that the veil between worlds weakens and more undead are likely to spawn? What if only 10% of the village was there and now the entire village is at risk of ghouls appearing and dragging people off? When I was young I was told that animating dead was uniformally evil in D&D. I wasn't sure why, but I decided that I should explain it .. so in my lore, animating undead weakens the veil between the planes of the undead and the Prime - meaning that there is a chance undead spontaneously rise after you animate undead. If you cast animate dead today, a ghoul might spontaneously arise a year from now. So in my campaign, I don't explore this idea that animate dead might not be all evil - because it is inherently evil in my game. But I sometimes regret making it so black and white because there is storytelling to be done there that I shut off by making it so clear. [/QUOTE]

Verification