@Ramidel
I don't know if it will be a pure surplus. What is the input cost for raising skeletons? Is it equivalent exchange?
Hmm, if I was dead and someone brought me back to a form of life that didn't experience any pain, hunger, fear or hate, I don't think I would mind that much.
Then again, I wouldn't mind much if someone stripped all my bones from my body and replaced them with a Terminator-style endoskeleton, and dumped all the contents of what makes me human, my mind and all that stuff, into a collection of CP Us. Or did the same sort of work on me that was done on Adam Jensen in the recent Human Revolution game.
I wouldn't be saying such piss as "I never asked for this."
The existence of sentient undead would raise a whole horde of questions. For example, is the undead creature the same "person" or not? Or is it just a dead body inhabited by a simulacrum of the previous occupant? In either case, what rights do sentient undead have? Can they vote, own, inherit or bequeath property?
In fantasy worlds it's not that much of a concern, since undead like Vampires or Liches can either hide their state from the public, or they're so powerful already that few would dare try to stop them. (Want to try to collect Lord Xykon's taxes?)
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Maybe you need to register with your local temple or church. If you reach Wight or higher and they don't have a high enough level cleric in case you turn a bit diabolical, that could be trouble. Maybe you could take rehumanizing lessons every hundred years or so to stave off the old 'beyond the affairs of brief pitiful mortals' syndrome.
"Rehumanizing lessons"?
If you really wanted to keep your humanity, a big part of it would be, you know, hanging out around humans. Also known as socializing.
And if we lived in a world where necromancy carries no stigma, a couple of undead folk would have no problem hanging around normal people. (As long as they make themselves presentable. No one wants to hang around someone who smells like rotting flesh, for example.)
This "faculty lot" you speak of sounds like a place of great power...I agree the first should be a right, but not the second. I'd say that the use of their dead body as a form of undead should be perfectly fine regardless. It's not like they're going to use it, unless they wish to be resurrected, but, then, using their body as a husk would interfere with other rights of theirs.
Well, if we lived in a world of magically-reanimated skeletons, I'm pretty sure that somebody could also discover how to magic you up a new kidney or lung. Isn't there a "Regenerate" spell that does just that? Or maybe not; it all depends on the arbitrary rules of magic.
One major drawback to creating sentient undead, or really any sort of immortality, would be social stagnation. Imagine a country or corporation run by a vampire or lich. And then as time goes by, the upper echelons of society are filled with wealthy, powerful, undying overlords. Eventually the weight of the undead would overtake the living, due to sheer numbers and power. Why would I bother having children and grandchildren if I can just live forever and be my own legacy?
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.@Qeise: I would rather not have immortality if it's not "me" inside my body anymore.
Interestingly, while the idea of the "socially stagnant" society of immortal creatures ruling everything has been explored extensively in fiction, the idea of immortal or quasi-immortal humans as masterful long-term planners (i.e., the positive side of immortality) doesn't seem to come up as much. Robert A Heinlein addressed it in his "Future History" series, although it wasn't from the perspective of The Undead.
It seems to me that someone becoming immortal via undeath would focus themselves first and foremost on sustaining whatever eldritch magic enables said immortality. Conservation of energy needs to be addressed in any realistic setting.
edited 10th Oct '12 8:55:58 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Kyler: Why should someone be able to choose to opt out of having organs from the body that used to be theirs be used to save lives? I don't think either should be their right. The collection of atoms that used to compose their body isn't their's any more than the legos used to build a house are still a house when they're used to build, say, an X-Wing.
edited 10th Oct '12 9:30:13 AM by deathpigeon
Wether or not I would consent to donating my body to undeath for somebody other than myself would depend on several factors. Does it limit or prevent my chances of having an undeath? If yes, I would rather use my corpse myself. If no, would who/whatever inhabits my body make the world better or worse? If better, then yes, I would donate my otherwise useless corpse to a good cause.
Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.
Yes. I think the original owner of the body should decide these things. Just like how they decide they can be a organ donor.
In one of the short stories in the Walking Dead anthology, you could take out loans with your corpse as collaterial. As soon as you paid the money back before you died, no biggie. If you died still in debt, then you were reanimated as labor until your debt was paid.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

When it comes to necromancy I'm more into "tomb guardians" that come back up when their territory (or their descendants') is under attack.
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."