Ethically Sound Necromancy

Generally, necromancy is found in two distinct forms. First is the classical depiction necromancer who would summon and commune with dead, and is generally seen not an inherently good or bad thing. Second is the more modern depiction of the necromancer who is a master of the undead, summoning zombies, skeletons, ghouls, and whatever other undead nasties one can think of, and is seen as being inherently wrong. This view of the more modern necromancy being something inherently wrong has always bothered me, as I always thought that one would be able to do necromancy right, and do good stuff with it. However, the majority of necromancers, in fiction, are bad people, who use their necromancy to create private armies, and stuff. In addition, I have heard people argue that necromancy is inherently wrong, but I've always felt unsatisfied with the arguments I've heard, I mean, one using "How would you feel if you saw your grandfather's body walking around as a zombie?" as an argument, which is not only a terrible argument, but I was able to defeat it by simply saying that I wouldn't take issue with that. So I decided to create this thread to answer a simple question, which probably has a complicated answer:

Can necromancy of the more modern depiction be done in an ethically sound way, and, if so, what rules would the necromancer have to adhere to while practicing necromancy in order to stay ethically sound?

The main issue is what necromancy does to souls (or their equivalent in the setting.)

If necromancy is just about manipulating dead tissue, well, that's gross and disrespectful towards the dead (personally, I would not consent to something like that being done to the bodies of my loved ones, not except in truly life-or-death circumstances), but not necessarily evil in all circumstances.

On the other hand, if necromancy is about wresting the spirits of the dead from their rightful places in the afterlife and forcing them to obey the necromancer's commands, then this is utterly unacceptable (just as any other form of slavery.)

That the dead he raises be allowed to go back to rest when they want to and are not living in horrible torment. That the undead have the same (or as close as possible) human rights as the living and are not dangerous. If the undead are mindless, I'm not sure how ethical or what the point of bringing them back is - what could they do that the living or robots couldn't, and how do you know if their existence is unending misery?

Depending on its form, necromancy could be considered just an extension of being a doctor. Did you not get to the patient in time or were his wounds too severe? No worries, bring him back and he can live on as a reanimated corpse.

edited 5th Oct '12 2:27:06 AM by betaalpha

If I saw my zombie!grandfather walking around I would smash his legs with a blunt object to put him down and then go look for a woodchipper to feed him through. Don't ask me why. Just know that I am not kidding.

On the subject as a whole, if the necromancy was really good, there would be no real difference between the person before death and the person after resurrection. After all, it worked out really well for Lazarus, didn't it?

To me the main issue with Necromancy is the Necromancer's motivation.

Oh yes, Jesus was a necromancer.

Odd how most people don't talk about this.

edited 5th Oct '12 2:43:55 AM by DeviantBraeburn

More a biomancer, technically — you know, the whole "Lord of Life" thing, as per Mark 12:27 and so on. He did not so much command death (which is specifically described as an "enemy") as kick its bony ass and return the dead to life.

Conceptually, that's very different from the standard "necromancy" concept. The standard fantasy necromancer is fascinated by death, and often even worships it — either as an abstract concept, or by following a suitable god of death in the setting. If death is intrinsically bad, this is obviously unacceptable.

In D&D terms, there is a difference between True Resurrection, which is Conjuration(Healing), and Create Greater Undead, which is Necromancy[Evil].

edited 5th Oct '12 2:58:54 AM by Carciofus

I notice that the OP already mentioned that there are two main forms of necromancy, so I might as well make my point here.

Basically, the kind that desecrates the deceased is inherently wrong. Why? Because it not only messes with the natural order of decay and retiring from the stage of life, but also risks pouring oil into flames of the families concerned. Since we're not strictly including soulcrafts, then my point is, even if it's just animated dead, it's still wrong from ethical standpoints. And I did take all species into account.

Surely if you are the Lord of Life, the opposite is also true? In the words of the song made famous by Old Blue Eyes himself,

"You can't have one, you can't have none, you can't have one without the other."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H5OhbA6j1Y

Uh, no. He was "Lord of Life" because he can "return" Lazarus' life to him. But he can't be "Lord of Death" since he can't "give" death to someone.

What about the time he cursed the fig tree? Just because he doesn't use it on people doesn't mean he can't do it.

He cursed the fig tree, he didn't kill it. If the curse would kill the fig tree, that was not the primary end anyway.

Remember that he also "cursed" all those people selling in the Temple, but they didn't die now did they?

edited 5th Oct '12 5:38:06 AM by entropy13

You aren't really going to derail this into a Jesus debate, are you?

The answer to the OP is "Yes"- one well known example being the Dresden Files. Dresden once reanimated a T-Rex from the museum and rode it int battle with a horde of bad guys (it was just as epic as it sounds).

I forget if there there are any formal ethical restrictions on good wizards in the Dresden universe, but a sound one would be "no humans unless preventing even greater suffering, and then only temporarily".

edited 5th Oct '12 5:28:03 AM by DeMarquis

Implying there aren't different sorts of curses.

You forgot the polka power.

edited 5th Oct '12 5:27:54 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

This reminds me of Doctor Who NSS 1 E 3 The Unquiet Dead, in which an incorporeal alien race animates human corpses so they can experience having flesh bodies again. They make the assertion that, since we aren't doing anything with the bodies, why not give them to the aliens so they can be rescued from their exile.

The moral issue is then dodged by having the aliens turn out to be evil after all, but it's interesting that the Doctor appears willing to consent at first.

I should also point out that there is a very real difference between returning a dead person to life (that is, biologically alive with the original person inside) and creating a reanimated hunk of flesh that is still biologically defunct. The latter can be further broken down into whether it binds the original soul or simply uses the dead flesh sans any connection with its former owner.

Where each of these falls on the Scale of Scientific Sins is entirely dependent on the work.

Bringing people back to life can be an unqualified good (where this is true it is often accompanied by Death Is Cheap), or in darker worlds can result in Came Back Wrong. Raising the undead is never treated as good; at best it's a neutral act and at worst it's one of the most vile acts one can commit.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we aren't talking about actual resurrection and we aren't talking about the kind of undeath that rapes some poor bloke's soul. This is the strictly neutral type where you're simply utilizing a piece of dead flesh that would otherwise rot in the ground. Were such a thing practical to achieve on a wide scale, I could well imagine society holding an ongoing debate over the ethics and morality of it.

I'd expect that it would require at a minimum the consent of the deceased's family and/or some kind of declaration on the part of the individual prior to dying — much like we sign up as an organ donor when we apply for a driver's license. Taken to an extreme, animated dead bodies could be a common source of physical labor, relieving living people of many dirty and obnoxious jobs. Sanitation would obviously be a concern, though — I wouldn't expect to find zombie maids scrubbing people's homes unless that is addressed.

It would make a very interesting science fiction novel.

Edit: if we're talking about uses of this in fantasy fiction, then there are plenty of examples of necromancy being used for non-evil purposes; in any game where the Player Character(s) can practice necromancy, the game rarely makes a big deal about the ethics or morality of it. Even in Skyrim, where the bodies you animate often say, "Thank you," when you send them off to a second death. However, Skyrim is arguably a Crapsack World in which being raised as a zombie and/or having your soul ripped from your body to power enchantments is a risk of everyday life.

edited 5th Oct '12 7:20:27 AM by Fighteer

It's all about motivation, as with anything. I've been playing and really developing a necromancer in a Pathfinder campaign, and it's been interesting to be one. Also note that she's a True Neutral character, where her goddess is Neutral Evil. (Urgathoa, if anyone is interested.)

When confronted by other P Cs about her abilities, she simply said she associated with negative energy. Then when they eventually realized that negative energy was a funny way of saying "raising the dead" and that her very strong bodyguard was actually a skeleton, they quickly asserted necromancy was evil and that she was thus evil. The comparison she used was basically, "Why can't I consider the rogue evil, then, when he uses knives, which are primarily used to stab people? Or why is the magus not evil, when he could use his spells to harm others?"

Anyway, a way necromancy could be used for good is, one, treating the dead with respect when they deserve it. I say this because point two is, raising the dead of your recently-slain enemies and using them as allies - they can obviously die again without much regret or need to feel for them, since they were enemies anyway. Sure, necromancy is gruesome in that regard, but that's hardly the worst shit out there in most of these fantasy universes.

I mean, do remember that necromancers are also generally good at healing. Granted, they have an easier time healing the undead, but they're still capable of healing the living.

And an undead army is very useful, and can easily be used for good. Imagine your army dying - soldiers everywhere - and the war seems loss. When suddenly, the corpses rise again, and with no intent on holding back. And while the necromancer heals their battle wounds, the enemy lines get weaker and weaker from that very same power. In a way, necromancy can be a glorious post-death way of achieving victory, and very affordable, since you're effectively doubling your army at no cost or additional man power.

Let's not forget that necromancy also includes summoning and communicating with the spirits of the dead. I mean, if Great-Uncle Norman wants to pop round to chat about your progress through university over a nice cup of tea, why not head down to the graveyard, fire up the Necronomicon, and bring him back for an afternoon?

Depends on the nature of afterlife in your setting. Is the Necronomicon going to make a phone ring in your uncle's Fluffy Cloud Heaven loft? Or is it going to forcefully grab his shade, twist it painfully in order to force it to interact with a physical universe in ways that are not its own anymore, and enslave it to you?

Also, is it really going to your great-uncle? Or is it possible that it will be some malevolent thing instead who will answer your call — one far older and more clever than any human being, one who, if given the opportunity, will surely pluck your memories of your great-uncle right out of your mind and wear them like a clothing?

edited 5th Oct '12 11:08:45 AM by Carciofus

Is organ donation a form of necromancy?

As long as, by doing so, you aren't weakening the barriers between worlds so that the Spirits of Elder Evil can enter ours and wreak havoc. Because that's a pretty big price just to talk to Gramps.

That sounds suspiciously like a What Is Evil? justification. The problem with such things is that you have to be very careful to avoid the slippery slope to actual evil, rather than simple practicality.

I wouldn't classify it as such, no. The organ, when donated, is still "alive" and remains alive when put into another person. At no point are you creating the semblance of life in something that's already dead.

edited 5th Oct '12 11:09:31 AM by Fighteer

What if you could use dead organs? Would that fundamentally change it?

Do you have any idea what would happen if you introduced a cheap and endless source of unskilled labour into the market. The Mexicans would be complaining about how the zombies took their jobs.

I don't see any problem with the use of dead bodies if there aren't any souls involved. I mean, I plan to have my body donated to science one day. The anatomy museum in my university is full of preserved corpses, donated by their previous owners. They even have a ceremony honouring them, I believe.

I guess the issue is, if you give something a measure of autonomy, depending on how smart it is... does it have a soul?

As others said, there needs to be a distinction between actually bringing someone back to life, and merely raising a body.

Necromancers generally get the negative vibe because they don't just raise the bodies. They take control of those bodies to do what they want. People might not trust you if you had that kind of power because they don't know what you can do with it. The "good" necromancers are typically anti-heroes that use the tools of their opponents against them.

Necromancers that actually give back a body to a soul for that soul's sake probably don't get this vibe. This man◊ is sort of a necromancer, and it doesn't really make him a bad guy.

A lot of tabletops classify not just resurrection, but your entire healing repertoire under necromancy. That, and I've seen a couple settings where Warrior Race X will ritualistically animate its deceased for parties or a last hurrah battle.

In most circumstances though, it's more along the lines of "not what we meant when we told you to make friends."

I am actually now imaging a horde of dead people gathering in front of a reluctant necromancer who has the same view as Cassie, begging her to use her powers to raise an army with their bodies to fight against an Eldritch Abomination who is about to come and unmake all of reality starting from the Underworld.

edited 5th Oct '12 7:37:05 PM by IraTheSquire