Ethically Sound Necromancy

Whether Vampires are bad or not depends mainly on a two factors. Most importantly: is drinking fatal for the donor? If not how much does the vampire need? If the vampire needs a nonfatal drop every year it wouldn't be too much of a drain on society.

Of course all donations would need to be absolutely voluntary. Depending on what special powers vampires have precautions would need to be taken to ensure they can't cause harm to others, living or undead, and protect them from rogue vampire hunters.

edited 28th Jan '14 1:26:33 PM by Qeise

The Sime Gen series already does that, sort of. Since they run on Our Vampires Are Different, certain ones (channels) can draw out the life energy without being fatal, while regular ones can't stop killing once they start.

Daybreakers was a fun little twist on the mythology.

If "fresh blood" isn't a big deal, a vampire with the right connections could just work at a blood bank or a hospital and have a deal where they get a few packets of blood each week.

True, but the thing with going to a blood bank for the drink is that in that case the donors wouldn't be consenting. I think the donor has the right to expect his or her blood isn't just sold as drinks to a vampire.

On a second thought: otherwise unusable blood, like HIV-positive I think could well go vampires, as nobody else will be needing it. Also drain dead bodies after organ harvesting them.

edited 29th Jan '14 12:24:50 PM by Qeise

Vampires will also have plenty of human volunteers

Whenever I play a necromancer in D&D, I usually defend it by asking what makes the practice different form repurposing an old worn-out shirt someone else has discarded.

That said, I foresee something like this eventually happening:

"Necromancy Is Evil: Reconstructed. Rather than there being anything wrong with the process of reanimation itself, Necromancy is frowned upon due to the issue of how exactly a given necromancer intends to supply themselves with all those corpses."

> I usually defend it by asking what makes the practice different form repurposing an old worn-out shirt someone else has discarded.

Except your talking about a PERSON being brought back against their will,a PERSON.

>Except your talking about a PERSON being brought back against their will,a PERSON.

That depends on the edition. In current D&D what you're describing would be resurrection, not reanimation. In reanimation, which is what is utilized in your garden-variety zombie/skeleton horde, the resulting undead is, spiritually, an entirely new and distinct entity that's just driving a used car, so to speak.

I notice you necro'd this thread...

I admit I hadn't noticed how old all the comments were, but come on. If you found a tome of necromancy in the library tomorrow, where the heck would you get the corpse necessary?

Assuming OP even posts here anymore, I'll throw my 2 cents in: The name necromancy by itself has some very negative connotations, so I'd say it's always going to be unethical. After all, if you could speak to or raise the dead with no ill effects the story becomes much more complicated to write.

I support necromancy in all its forms. Now I just need to figure out how to do it.

Raising the dead is like constructing explosives in your basement. It could be used for good purposes, but would society be willing to take the chance? If real, necromancy would be regulated like anything else. "To qualify for your necromancy license, you have to take this test and pay $100 per body."

As for where to get the bodies, you buy them. The typical customer is a medical school or research center, but if you pay them enough, and you had your license, you could obtain what you needed.

A necromancer would also be useful for giving last rites and funeral arrangements. Summon the spirits of the recently deceased to allow them and their loved ones to have some final closure.

It'd also make homicide investigations somewhat easier.

Edited by M84 on Sep 7th 2020 at 9:41:13 PM

summoning spirits to solve a murder trial would very quickly be outlawed following the discovery that spirits can made to lie as they don't actually remember how they died,or by who

Reminds of a jury that got dismissed when the judge discovered they reached their verdict by using an Ouija board [its marketed as a toy people still swear they're really communicating with the dead]

One word: Rashomon

Hence the "somewhat" qualifier.

I had a original story idea like this. It's suppose to take place in a Dn D world meets Victorian era. The main protagonist is a necromancy from a noble family that has a magical affinity for it. She mainly uses her power as a detective for crime and to find out whom the victims were so she can deliver them to their proper families. Of course some spirits will lie so....

Her brother, whom is a necromancer himself, works in the funeral business and makes a lot of money off it considering the time period.

Edited by Wispy on Sep 7th 2020 at 7:29:24 AM

Let's not forget that the original definition of necromancy was simply about communicating with the dead. None of that raising corpses crap.

Well my character would only raise and preserve animal corpses after seeing if the animal's spirit likes them or not. Think Hector from Castlevania, he would tend to raise animals and take care of them. The animals would keep their loving and endearing personalities even after being raised and usually died from accidents.

I think you could argue, assuming magic exists, that as long as a spirit consents to a necromancer raising their corpse that its on the less evil side of things. If I recall correctly the issue with modern necromancers raising corspes is that they are usually forcibly binding peoples souls to their decaying corpses with no consent from their souls. I imagine necromantic magic could preserve and repair corpses far greater than any conventional methods anyway. It would certainly make identifying Jane Does much easier.

Edited by Wispy on Sep 7th 2020 at 7:31:11 AM

TBH, "real" necromancy was more akin to what we'd call mediums or phone psychics today.

Except a real necromancer wouldn't be a fraud looking to bilk grieving families.

The big problem with necromancy, from a narrative perspective, is that death must exist for some reason. Whatever that reason is, be it a personified version of Death or the Karmaic nature of existence itself, should resist necromancy. There will be humans who side with that source of resistance. Built in tension.

Edited by DeMarquis on Sep 7th 2020 at 10:40:38 AM

If they're not actually raising the dead but simply doing the equivalent of videoconferencing with the afterlife, it shouldn't be a problem.

This is basically Geist: The Sin-Eaters. Though given the universe, it is very likely spirits of murdered people will go hunting for whoever killed them.

Edited by dragonfire5000 on Sep 7th 2020 at 8:36:06 AM