Earlier I dragged a hunting partner all the way back to our Cleric buddy, and had drinks for everyone hanging out. I don't want to see anyone hurt, but you know, am totally fine with pushing a few more bodies under the proverbial carriage of my real work.

Lex Luthor hating on Superman didn't make him a villain you could empathize with, it made him a more understandable psychopath, perhaps with more childish motives.

Does that make Obi-wan the Old Man? Or is that Yoda?

---

Weapons for Sale:
http://www.elanthipedia.org/wiki/User:Caraamon#Wares
Hunta Talna Kortok, built by Gor'Togs, for Gor'Togs
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg2/caraamon/home.html
Combat Balance List:
http://tinyurl.com/DRBalance

>IMO harvesting a creature is morally equivalent to skinning.
You are incorrect. Our progress in Thanatology is akin to our progress in the Great Work. The Great Work is not the same as skinning, thematically or technically.

>I think the GMs have done a great job of leaving everything vague enough that there's some wiggle room to RP a "good guy" necro.
Yes, eventually, we will be allowed to pursue Redemption, and become a Redeemed Necromancer. We are not currently Redeemed; none of us are 'good guy' Necromancers at this point in time.

>Remember the quote "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Outlaws are typically bad people, but that doesn't make gun ownership evil or gun owners evil. A person could illegally own a gun and still use it only for protection/hunting, yet still be an outlaw. I think that's why most necros tend to be evil, because most good people wouldn't choose something illegal to begin with. Only the chaotic good, Robin Hood archetypes work.
You are very, very incorrect as to what Necromancy is if you think it is equivalent to owning a gun in a state that prohibits gun ownership.

Again, this has been hashed over ad nauseum; it is fine if your character believes that what they are doing is ultimately for the greater good, but it is important to realize, both as the player, and potentially even the character themselves, that what Necromancers are doing is distinctly NOT for the greater good, and oftentimes, the Necromancers are even aware of this. We aren't just misunderstood, we aren't the Galileo's fighting the Church; we are wrong, we are the monsters, we are evil, and we will not succeed in ushering a new area of peace and prosperity.

>> You are incorrect. Our progress in Thanatology is akin to our progress in the Great Work. The Great Work is not the same as skinning, thematically or technically.

Keeping in mind that the person you responded to was about harvesting and not thanatology as a whole, I think it depends on the perspective.

Most of society would probably see harvesting as a thanatological act that is much deeper/darker/eviler than just skinning.
Necromancers would probably view it as a very ritualized/spiritual/arcane/etc act, which is also much more than "just" skinning.
Someone completely disconnected might see harvesting as just looking for a really particular part of a corpse that is prepared in a certain manner, which is kinda how skinning works as a whole, anyway (especially in 3.0 since you'll be grabbing parts/organs, bones, skins, etc).

That said, my understanding is that people doing rituals are a lot more "blind" to what they're actually doing. When a Necromancer is casting Acid Splash, they have (or eventually get) a solid grasp of the mechanics behind it. They're know the mechanics behind how they're pulling in streams of energy to create a specific matrix that can then be channeled down an ethereal pathway to the target. I don't think even Book (or Kigot?) really has (/had?) a solid grasp of what the hell they're doing when they're doing the rituals. They just know that if you carve this here with a knife that is used to carve stuff like that, you're set to go. There's no real scientific understanding behind why it happens, unlike a good chunk of magic or more practical things like using weapon, alchemy, skinning, etc.

Hell, if anything, I might say skinning and Thanatology aren't the same because there's an actual science behind skinning. Thanatology seems to be more in the realm of "you do it like this because that's how it works," at least for now. Right?

>>We aren't just misunderstood, we aren't the Galileo's fighting the Church; we are wrong, we are the monsters, we are evil, and we will not succeed in ushering a new area of peace and prosperity.

I think it's important to acknowledge that there's a difference between the in-game lore viewpoint and the out-of-game player viewpoint. In game, you're right, but mainly just because society just happens to not currently agree with necromancers (not that I think they ever will). Out of game, it's a pretty valid comparison. Both parties were espousing beliefs that threatened the foundation of the local power structures. Now, ICly, does Elanthia's power structure have a better reason to be concerned about necromancers because they can very well be disrupting the very foundation of reality? Yes: after all, Galileo's observations weren't going to end up unraveling the fabric of reality.

Then again, it's also worth keeping in mind that there are a lot of things that can disrupt the very foundation of reality, and Elanthians are more tolerable and/or absolutely cool with that. Non-Necromantic sorcery can also cause Very Bad Things (tm), and let's not ignore how Moon Mages are poking holes into reality and toying with the Plane of Probability itself. So people being a bit more particular about one specific type of magic also comes off as a bit oddly selective, no matter how right they might be about that magic being Very Bad.

---

"You always have to be a know-it-all. And you don't. Know. It. All." - GERSTEINJ2

>Hell, if anything, I might say skinning and Thanatology aren't the same because there's an actual science behind skinning. Thanatology seems to be more in the realm of "you do it like this because that's how it works," at least for now. Right?

I think Armifer posted something to the effect of toying with the idea of every so often, requiring we dissect a humanoid, because Thanatology is NOT just skinning. A Ranger can slay a million deer and become a fantastic tanner; a Necromancer is 'doing something else' when we train Thanatology that is significantly different from skinning.

But insofar as Thanatology not being an exact science is concerned, I'm not sure? I'm under the impression that practicing the rituals makes us more accomplished at our craft, and the number to the right of Thanatology when we type EXP ALL is a game representation of how far along we are with our own version of The Great Work.

>>I really recommend giving this a good read: www.elanthipedia.org/w/index.php/Necromancer#Necromancer_Guild_Lore

"Necromancers in the broad term occupy a different ecological niche than the PC Necromancers. "Necromancer" is a code word for Bad Guy in the most fundamental sense. Necromancers in the past have done wildly misanthropic stuff simply because They're Evil. Nobody cares about the feasibility of Sidhlot's portrayal of evil. That's not the point. He's older than dragons and so metal he poops viking helmets.

...

The drama of the PC Necromancer -- the pogroms, the murmurs of conspiring otherworldly forces, the entwining moral evils from both sides, and the hints of transcendental glory -- is set in the foundation that the Philosophers bring to the setting."

I feel that it is incredibly important to highlight that part. Are Necromancers ICly inherenetly evil? Yes, if you ask the average person in Elanthian society. Are Necromancers, on an OOC level, inherently evil? That's a different matter. One of the things Philosophers exist to accomplish is to explicitly highlight the evil in society itself. Necromancers (and more specifically Philosophers) are viewed as evil in Elanthia because they're on the losing side of fundamentalism. There can be entirely legitimate/scientific reasons to be terrified of the power they're trying to wield, but the fact that those viewpoints are most likely very accurate is more coincidental than it is justification.

>>I am saying that OOC, YOU the player, must be aware that your Necromancer is distinctly NOT good.

Players need to be aware that their Necromancer is viewed by society as distinctly not good, not that their necromancer is distinctly not good, and this is mainly so they can understand what kind of response the majority of society is expected to give them. There's a very major/important difference between the two.

---

"You always have to be a know-it-all. And you don't. Know. It. All." - GERSTEINJ2

>One of the things Philosophers exist to accomplish is to explicitly highlight the evil in society itself.
Agreed, but the difference between the routes the Empaths take to Transcendence and the route the Necromancers are attempting to take to Transcendence is that the Empathic path works. The Necromantic path does the opposite of Transcendence. I concur that one of the interesting aspects of the existence of the the Necromancer guild is that it underlines how 'the ends justify the means' can be used by both good and evil to reach their goal. That however, is not the same as saying 'Necromancers aren't evil'.

>Players need to be aware that their Necromancer is viewed by society as distinctly not good, not that their necromancer is distinctly not good, and this is mainly so they can understand what kind of response the majority of society is expected to give them. There's a very major/important difference between the two.

I see what you're saying, but disagree; again, Necromancers are trying to do something that is potentially in it's definition not evil (Transcend, or reach Godhood), but they are doing it via a path that is 'wrong'. Society may not understand what's at stake, or what parts of what Necromancy are actually dangerous (Acid Splash vs CFB, for example), and societies response may be overblown, but there is nothing about what Necromancers are doing that a player should consider, from an OOC perspective, 'for the greater good'.

>>You choose not to heed the admonitory communion, you choose to cast off the binding moral chains, and so the punitive soul fire returns. Despite your determination, you cannot help but feel an enormous loss at being scoured of everything holy and pure in you. All of it ends in but one instant. You are now among the forsaken: fallen from grace, vilified by the universe. However, as the final remnant of the Immortals' favor departs, new voices call to you from beyond. Nameless entities previously hidden in the shadow of divine might are now within your reach -- but so are you within theirs.


Being Directed at your character , I think the whole concept of "good" goes out the window ....

>>Being Directed at your character , I think the whole concept of "good" goes out the window ....

That's just the DR Equivalent to feeling guilty over eating meat. No biggie!

That said, I tend to take a bit of exception to messaging that makes every character automatically feel the same way. That doesn't mean one should ignore it, but process it in a manner that is appropriate for your character.

For example, it's like an atmo room message that says "The freezing wind blasts against your skin, chilling you to the bone." If your Albarian Misiumos-worshipping mountaineer character is wrapped in ten coats with a layer of thick leather armor under that, I think it's reasonable to acknowledge that the environmental messaging might not really be appropriate for what your character is personally experiencing. Still makes sense to acknowledge the wind, but it might not really be making you as cold as the naked Forest Elf next to you.

That said, sometimes you might very well be forced to feel something despite your character not wanting to feel it. So it's important to recognize the difference between the game unreasonably saying your character feels a certain way and knowing when your character wouldn't really have any say in the matter. Maybe the Immortals are just forcing you to feel that way, and it's not any kind of internalized shame.

That said, that doesn't really mean all Philosophers feel that way: just Forsaken ones. And even then, I'm not sure how long a Philosopher would hold onto that feeling of loss. As was mentioned forever ago, how bad do most adventurers feel after going through the Middens and having a miniature lout genocide? I'm not entirely sure why all non-Necromancers would have such a strong mental disconnect from their savagery/evil yet Philosophers would always feel really really bad and thus clearly they must be evil.

---

"You always have to be a know-it-all. And you don't. Know. It. All." - GERSTEINJ2

>Being Directed at your character , I think the whole concept of "good" goes out the window ....

Blasphemy is only bad if you believe the Immortals to be good. Nothing says that those new voices calling to you can't be good or neutral. Maybe by bypassing these Immortals, necros can find some true gods.

>>hmmmm. what about the messaging of internal shame that we get every time we cast the Rite of Contrition spell?

It's not necessarily talking about the same shame that was being previously discussed in the thread.

The best proof for this is that RoC lets someone mask the unconscious shame of being "scarred" well before someone can become Forsaken. It's masking the "scars" of Necromantic Corruption, which the Immortals don't necessarily care all that much about. The Immortals appear to be extremely specific (at least in 2.0) about what stuff they personally take issue with.

I'm rather certain that having unconscious shame about having what amounts to the magical equivalent of leprosy doesn't exactly prove that Necromancers must be evil, though. It just means they're aware, at some level or another, that they look rather gruesome in the right light.

If I were to make a comparison that might be a lot more introspective than initially intended (and possibly more appropriate when compared to becoming Forsaken than the effects of RoC...), it's like Empaths and shock. Shock is a very tangible expression of an Empath's life choices, but there's nothing that explicitly makes an Empath who gets shocked bad, evil, or wrong. It just means there's a response that makes them feel a certain way, and it may also very well be a result of external forces. It doesn't explicitly have to be internalized, although one would assume that an someone might eventually change their opinion on doing something if the result is being shocked or spiritually torn in two.

Then again, being jailed for Thievery over and over could theoretically make someone change their views on theft, but there's no real obligation for it to become something internalized, or make the pickpocket decide that they're evil.

---

"You always have to be a know-it-all. And you don't. Know. It. All." - GERSTEINJ2

>internal shame


I'm not entirely sure which part in RoC's messaging references internal shame (based on a quick look over Elanthipedia),


but with regards to being forsaken, keep in mind the wording has been very careful. The terms "Holy" and "Pure" were used. "Holy" in the DR context is merely a reference to divinity and the Immortals. That word does not necessary mean "good".

"Pure" in this context, also only mean as good as you are willing to accept "Innocent" being a "good thing", and as far as philosophers are concerned, "innocence" is ignorance.


Yes, there's pain and unease, but some necros at this point in time might simply think "That just means I'm doing it right." and continue to strive to be the Immortals' "equals".

>>My view is completely OOC on this . Necromancers are bad guys . The GMs say they're good guys , then they're good guys.

On an OOC level, Necromancers as a generalized group are bad. But that doesn't mean Philosophers have to be bad. Half of the fun of the Philosopher's guild is that they're not all expected to be bad, even if society ICly doesn't really care about the differences between Lyras and Book. If Philosophers were expected to be outright bad/evil/etc it would come at the cost of an incredibly fun part of the guild's roleplay dynamic.

---

"You always have to be a know-it-all. And you don't. Know. It. All." - GERSTEINJ2

>Maybe the Immortals are just forcing you to feel that way, and it's not any kind of internalized shame.
Huuuuuuuuuuh. I hadn't considered the Immortals understood influence over our consciousness or subconsciousness. And while I know the rhetoric of the Necromancer guild is centered around how 'wrong' the Immortals are, ethically, logistically, etc, I admit I was under the impression that that rhetoric was simply propaganda. That I hadn't considered the extensive propaganda the immortals may have also laid the groundwork for.

Hmmm.

Insofar as that is concerned, it does leave room for the intentions Necromancers movement to be 'correct', but I'm not sure there's much gamelore to indicate that this is the case?

>>And while I know the rhetoric of the Necromancer guild is centered around how 'wrong' the Immortals are, ethically, logistically, etc, I admit I was under the impression that that rhetoric was simply propaganda.

There are two things to keep in mind.

1) Book saying the Necromancer guild is "right" is based on propaganda.
2) The High Temple (and in turn most of Elanthia) saying the Necromancer guild is "wrong" is based on propaganda.

>>I hadn't considered the extensive propaganda the immortals may have also laid the groundwork for.

If certain Necromancy wasn't capable of becoming a legitimate threat to the Immortals, they probably wouldn't take the [admittedly small] effort to care about what they're doing. For whatever reason, the Immortals take great issue with Necromancers being able to pop themselves or others back to life without first consulting the Immortals. That should be some kind of indicator that the Necromancer guild is indeed aiming for some goals which could become tangible.

And yet the Immortals still don't really just outright smash them all dead. Which should probably make anyone really wondering about it really think.

---

"You always have to be a know-it-all. And you don't. Know. It. All." - GERSTEINJ2

>and yet they don't care how many bodies sidhot and the bone elves, or any of the other infamous necromancers thoughtout elanthean history "brought back" to life. There must be something specific to the way the Philosophers specifically are doing it that ticks off the immortals.

I would say that its inconclusive if the Immortals care or not about other cults of Necromancy. Its safer to say that the Immortals, for some unknown reason, don't seem to be doing something about those other Cults. It may be possible that Sidholt and his ilk have demonic or otherworldly protection keeping the Immortals from intervening.


Elusive
mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur

I feel like I am too late to this discussion to really add anything meaningful -- except to say that the Necro/Philosophers Guild tends to create some of the most interesting forums discussions on any DR board, or just about anywhere, in many and sundry areas of philosophy, literature, psychology, ontology, etc. I am going to reread this thread at least once more just to glean as much of the fascinating ideas as I can. I just wish a couple more Red Names could participate, even if it were non-canonical, "non-from-on-high" contributions, if that's possible. I am sure Armifer and others could add stuff to make this awesome thread even better!

The above is half the reason I love playing this class. :D

---

"4.116 Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly." ~Wittegenstein, 'Tractatus'

Also a little late to this thread, but keep in mind that "Right" and "Wrong" are defined by societies' mores. In Elanthia, those mores are normally defined by clerics and the Immortals. Anyone who refuses the yolk of those mores is necessarily refusing to accept the rights and wrongs of society and are able to formulate their own perceptions of morality. As for why the Immortals hate the Philosophers specifically, I would think its more the fact that they have intentionally thrown off said yolk. Sidhlot, the Bone elves, et al haven't necessarily done so. The aim of those groups is normally destruction/power, not necessarily separation from the Immortals.

Of course Moon Mages see visions of "The End." If the Philosophers succeed, the Immortals could very well see their faith-base depreciate en masse, only to be taken up by another deity/demon. Such events have occurred throughout history, hence why there are soooo many religions. Necromancers aren't necessarily the cause of "The End," they merely have a chance to facilitate the possibility of it. And according to the current religions, nobody wants to see the Immortals ousted! Heavens forbid, anyone that would attempt such a thing would be the most vile creature ever conceived! (Proof for the equation that Necromancy = Evil.)

But Teveshzat is correct. There does not have to be a sense of shame for the character, as characters have their own reasons for doing as they do. Once they shrug off the massively accepted perceptions of right and wrong, they are completely free to create their own.

>>>2) The High Temple (and in turn most of Elanthia) saying the Necromancer guild is "wrong" is based on propaganda.

>>The metaphysical information we have via moon mages strongly implies there are some SERIOUSLY wrong, one might even call evil, issues with just being a Necromancer.

Yes... we moon mages DO see something wrong with necromancy, but (scary as it is) I would say a bit of that statement carries a bit of propaganda as well. We also see horrible things stemming from the stuff that WE do. We just don't advertise that. I mean, we've been breaking reality for years in ways no one but denizens of the astral plane seem to notice, and at least one of those seems to take serious offense to that. Also, Y'Shai are pretty darned "unholy" sounding from all the lore. I think some of our push to persecute necros is that way we can to our own questionable things without near as much public attention. We are now no longer the "scary mages," which is a pretty sweet deal for our guild as a whole

Think about how there are immortals whose sole purposes are the corruption society, theft of souls, and instigation of mass carnage. Some of the clerics who point at a necromancer and say "bad" then turn around and lend their strength to beings who are interested in the decay of our civilization.

And then there's blackfire, the sole purpose of which is to perform like a cross-planar delete key (if I remember my lore correctly)

Does that make moonies and clerics and warmies just as bad as necros? Not as a rule, but maybe in some individual cases. Does that make necromancy less bad? Not at all.

I'm just saying that leaning on clerical and moonie accusations of how "bad" necromancers are is like agreeing with wall street investment firms when they say the only real problem is Bonnie & Clyde.

Just my opinion on the matter.

>> Y'Shai tangent

From Elanthipedia:

Y'Shai "undergo extensive preparation, including intense psychic probing and "cauterization" to ensure the loyalty of the mage to the guild. The mage is then magically fused to their own suit of cambrinth armor (complete with "distinctive" face mask) and within it is created a self-replenishing system that regenerates and nourishes the mage within. Physical contact is impossible after this ritual, as a mage can never take off their armor once it has been fused to their bodies. Unnecessary flesh and organs eventually atrophy away and die, and the bones calcify due to the intense amounts of Lunar mana being channeled through their bodies constantly. What is left is the "necessary mortal core," with the trade off that they are nigh unto indestructible, have no need for food or sleep, and have their psychic and magical power multiplied by a hundredfold.

...At least part of the process for creating Y'shai was derived from the Arte of the Black Cockatrice, a book of sorcery currently in possession of the Progeny of Tezirah. A byproduct of this process is that the mage's soul is horrifically damaged"

But ignore all that. Necromancers must all die for the horrible things they do; pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

To loop this tangent back around to the topic under discussion: I feel like "Good & Evil" in the DR world need not necessarily directly correspond with "Holy & Unholy," on some irrefutable scale. While Holy or Unholy is pretty black and white, there is wiggle room to play any character in any guild as trying to be either good or evil. It's a much grayer scale.

~Player of Lucky Fedricio, Evader of the Gypsies

Moon Mages! Doing the wrong thing the right way since 580 years before the Victory of Lanival.