It's also worth commenting on the look given to us by the Diablo series and the Pale Master prestige class, which is of an ashen-white complexioned magic-user who has forsaken the world of the sun to hone their craft in crypts and mausoleums.
And yes, it's impossible not to mention Liches, one of the ultimate foes in fantasy RPGs, and almost universally seen as evil and power incarnate. Becoming a Lich is the ultimate final frontier of Necromancy, not unlike what Voldemort did with his Horcruxes.
But I think the real reason is thematic. Evil sorcerers seem more scary if they have an army of zombies ... so when people come up with magic-using villains, they like to make them into necromancers, contributing to the stereotype that necromancy is evil by nature.
I guess this is what I was getting at; there is something inherently icky/uncomfortable about associating with corpses, which gives rise to various taboos; this is not necessarily evil, but it is effective at giving more 'oomph' to a given portrayal of evil. An analogue is the cult in Dragon's Eye: there's nothing inherently evil about snakes, but a lot of people are afraid of or freaked out by snakes. So instead of "evil cult," we get "priests of the snake goddess, allied with snake-men, led by an immortal six-armed evil snake-woman."
@FinneousPJ it's getting far astray, but I wouldn't call homosexuality or interracial marriage "taboo." They have been forbidden by the powers that be, but I wouldn't say that reflected a broad value judgment amounting to societal consensus. (Of course, in societies where there is/was such a consensus, you do see them spoken of as immoral or unethical.)
Anyway the mere violation of taboo is, as I distinctly said, not necessarily unethical or bad. Look at drag shows. People find them to be uproarious fun; would it be nearly as much fun to watch a bunch of normal women sing karaoke? Of course not; the fact that the performers are drag queens makes the whole thing better in some fundamental way. The shows' transgressive nature contributes to their appeal.
Clearly you do not agree, but I would suggest looking at social consensus issues like taboos as separate from morality and ethics. Unless you think slavery for example was ethical back in the day but somehow ceased to be later on... which I find silly.
It's also worth commenting on the look given to us by the Diablo series and the Pale Master prestige class, which is of an ashen-white complexioned magic-user who has forsaken the world of the sun to hone their craft in crypts and mausoleums.
And yes, it's impossible not to mention Liches, one of the ultimate foes in fantasy RPGs, and almost universally seen as evil and power incarnate. Becoming a Lich is the ultimate final frontier of Necromancy, not unlike what Voldemort did with his Horcruxes.
I simple don't understand why someone wanna become a Lich in D&D when you can become a vampire. Sure, Liches aren't weak to sun, but live as a Lich should be pretty hard. I mean, no human form(trade with humans or elves will be impossible), a lich will never feel pleasure again, will allways be doomed to a solitary life. Also, if powerful nobles detect you, as a vampire you can "gaseous form" and flee. As a a Lich, they will send a lot of high level mercenaries to kill you. And become a vampire is much more easy.
I like to kledge necromancy Druids together, and I treat the necromancy spells as an extension of the natural decay that takes place in nature. Decay which, by the way, is necessary for new life to grow. This means that I don't use any undead summoning spells though, as they are break from the natural cycle.
Nice point, bug angels are part of "universe" and are good. IMHO the neutral things in D&D are constructs.
I simple don't understand why someone wanna become a Lich in D&D when you can become a vampire. Sure, Liches aren't weak to sun, but live as a Lich should be pretty hard. I mean, no human form(trade with humans or elves will be impossible), a lich will never feel pleasure again, will allways be doomed to a solitary life. Also, if powerful nobles detect you, as a vampire you can "gaseous form" and flee. As a a Lich, they will send a lot of high level mercenaries to kill you. And become a vampire is much more easy.
I think I made the same claim in another thread a while back, though I focused more on the fact that achieving lichdom ran a high risk of simple death. But another user pointed out that vampires are more or less slaves to their head vampire in most settings. A lich, by contrast, would not be bound to the will of any other critter; he or she would be free. Lichdom would be the better option for someone who wanted to be independent.
To answer @SorcererV1ct0r ‘s main question, I think it’s probably because of fear.
Most people, even today, have some fear and also a significant investiture of emotional pain surrounding death. We don’t want to die (survival instinct) and we may know close loved ones who have died.
When our loved ones die, we want to see them again. It would be great if they could just live again! Now imagine your horror if that person who died, her corpse rotting in the ground, was suddenly moving around again... but wasn’t anything close to what she was in life. Perhaps your once-lover, with whom you parted with on such good terms (or even bad terms), now wishes to harm you. Maybe they are even being controlled by some other evil force or person against their will.
Such ideas make for easy antagonistic objects in writing and literature, both ancient and modern. Most people fear death, so associate death with -insert plot point here- and it becomes undesirable to most people. That undesirability translated readily into “evil”.
I also really like that @subtledoctor brought up snakes in this discussion.
Snakes are also very often objectified as evil in cultures all over the world. Dragons are one of the few things that all cultures have in common (along with common themes in the “creation” legend, among other things, but that is for another discussion), though they aren’t necessarily treated as evil in eastern cultures.
I recently read a theory about this. The hypothesis is that snakes are the most ancient and among the most effective predators of mammals in evolution. Mammals’ generally superior eyesight may have been a result of a survival need to detect snakes.
In essence, snakes are connected to our survival instinct through evolution. And death is the means of our survival instinct. So, that humans fear death to keep them alive, and snakes were for millennia directly caused death, our species has evolved to characterize both death and snakes as “evil,” because we fear both, because both go against the basic common human instinct to survive.
Thus, necromancy, by extension, and snakes/dragons are easy objects of antagonism in writing.
I simple don't understand why someone wanna become a Lich in D&D when you can become a vampire. Sure, Liches aren't weak to sun, but live as a Lich should be pretty hard. I mean, no human form(trade with humans or elves will be impossible), a lich will never feel pleasure again, will allways be doomed to a solitary life. Also, if powerful nobles detect you, as a vampire you can "gaseous form" and flee. As a a Lich, they will send a lot of high level mercenaries to kill you. And become a vampire is much more easy.
I think I made the same claim in another thread a while back, though I focused more on the fact that achieving lichdom ran a high risk of simple death. But another user pointed out that vampires are more or less slaves to their head vampire in most settings. A lich, by contrast, would not be bound to the will of any other critter; he or she would be free. Lichdom would be the better option for someone who wanted to be independent.
Yes,
"If the vampire instead drains the victim’s Constitution to 0 or lower, the victim returns as a spawn if it had 4 or less HD and as a vampire if it had 5 or more HD. In either case, the new vampire or spawn is under the command of the vampire that created it and remains enslaved until its master’s destruction. At any given time a vampire may have enslaved spawn totaling no more than twice its own Hit Dice; any spawn it creates that would exceed this limit are created as free-willed vampires or vampire spawn. A vampire that is enslaved may create and enslave spawn of its own, so a master vampire can control a number of lesser vampires in this fashion. A vampire may voluntarily free an enslaved spawn in order to enslave a new spawn, but once freed, a vampire or vampire spawn cannot be enslaved again." https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Vampire
To be a lich, you need to fulfill a lot of requirements(see the video that i have posted), be bitten by a vampire with less than half of your HD is IMHO more easy. Mainly if you are a lv 18+ sorc/wiz. Simple find a lv 5 vampire and since he can only control lv 10 HD worth of vampire/vampire spawns, you can be free.
For an interestingly different take on necromancy, play Anastasia's campaign in Heroes of Might and Magic 6. Her aunt Sveltana, who trains her after raising her from the dead, has lots of interesting things to say about philosophy of necromancy and how life, death, and magic work together in that setting.
Necromancers can be royal advisers in the Ashan setting, and are not seen as automatically evil, although many of them are.
For the most part, necromancy in Ashan is just seen as a fact of life, "the way things are." Deceased souls are taken care of and governed by one of five dragon gods. Through magical power and incantation, they can be brought back as skeletons, ghouls, ghosts, vampires, and liches, often voluntarily, sometimes not. The lower end undead are seen as neutral automatons under the control of the necromancer who summoned them, similar to golems. Higher end sentient undead usually have made some kind of bargain with the necromancer they serve and have returned to service willingly. (Heroes of Might and Magic is a strategy game where you build armies and castles and fight for control of maps.) Some of them are necromancers themselves, like Anastasia, who is a raised undead being.
As always, the common people are distrustful of necromancers and necromancer armies, and some political factions consider them automatic enemies. There are plenty of examples of corrupt necromancers who use the undead for nefarious ends. All magic is viewed with a certain amount of distrust, and is seen as an activity of the elite. All the necromancer characters in the game are of noble birth.
I guess the point of taboos not equating to morals was already conceded.
Taboos are generally an easy way to measure morals. A person's morals come from somewhere, and the cultural taboos one is raised with are an easy way to develop a personal moral code.
I also really like that @subtledoctor brought up snakes in this discussion.
Snakes are also very often objectified as evil in cultures all over the world. Dragons are one of the few things that all cultures have in common (along with common themes in the “creation” legend, among other things, but that is for another discussion), though they aren’t necessarily treated as evil in eastern cultures.
I recently read a theory about this. The hypothesis is that snakes are the most ancient and among the most effective predators of mammals in evolution. Mammals’ generally superior eyesight may have been a result of a survival need to detect snakes.
In essence, snakes are connected to our survival instinct through evolution. And death is the means of our survival instinct. So, that humans fear death to keep them alive, and snakes were for millennia directly caused death, our species has evolved to characterize both death and snakes as “evil,” because we fear both, because both go against the basic common human instinct to survive.
Thus, necromancy, by extension, and snakes/dragons are easy objects of antagonism in writing.
I like this chain of thought... But we also need to include spiders...
In Elder Scrolls, necromancy was a taboo and outlawed in many regions and when a reanimated body dies, you can hear "finally free". In movies and series it is represented as a bad thing too.
I think that @subtledoctor provided the best answer for that question: it's because of tabooos conntected with dead body - so it's evil because of the same reasons why Achilles mutaliting Hector's body is evil. Other possibility is internal philosophy of a setting - for example, I think that raising dead body is considered evil magic in Harry Potter's universe because one of it's on-going themes is acceptance of death and it's place in natural order. In first book Dumbledore says that death is natural and nothing to be afraid of. Antagonist, Voldemort, is seeking ways to achieve immortality, regardless of price. So, necromancy is evil. The same thing goes for Tolkien and his Ringwraiths, and, more deeply with entire fate of Man - you can say that entire story of Numenore revolves around that topic. But! If you have something like Eragon, then it's probably based on tradition - and eventually it returns to poor Hector.
A radical wing in a youth political movement in Sweden wanted to legalise necrophilia - sex with corpses - in case the dead person made a will to that effect.
That position was not universally supported, even if morally impeccable, as such.
In case you join the rather easy condemnation there - do you not think souls are way more challenging?
I simple don't understand why someone wanna become a Lich in D&D when you can become a vampire. Sure, Liches aren't weak to sun, but live as a Lich should be pretty hard. I mean, no human form(trade with humans or elves will be impossible), a lich will never feel pleasure again, will allways be doomed to a solitary life. Also, if powerful nobles detect you, as a vampire you can "gaseous form" and flee. As a a Lich, they will send a lot of high level mercenaries to kill you. And become a vampire is much more easy.
I think I made the same claim in another thread a while back, though I focused more on the fact that achieving lichdom ran a high risk of simple death. But another user pointed out that vampires are more or less slaves to their head vampire in most settings. A lich, by contrast, would not be bound to the will of any other critter; he or she would be free. Lichdom would be the better option for someone who wanted to be independent.
Yes,
"If the vampire instead drains the victim’s Constitution to 0 or lower, the victim returns as a spawn if it had 4 or less HD and as a vampire if it had 5 or more HD. In either case, the new vampire or spawn is under the command of the vampire that created it and remains enslaved until its master’s destruction. At any given time a vampire may have enslaved spawn totaling no more than twice its own Hit Dice; any spawn it creates that would exceed this limit are created as free-willed vampires or vampire spawn. A vampire that is enslaved may create and enslave spawn of its own, so a master vampire can control a number of lesser vampires in this fashion. A vampire may voluntarily free an enslaved spawn in order to enslave a new spawn, but once freed, a vampire or vampire spawn cannot be enslaved again." https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Vampire
To be a lich, you need to fulfill a lot of requirements(see the video that i have posted), be bitten by a vampire with less than half of your HD is IMHO more easy. Mainly if you are a lv 18+ sorc/wiz. Simple find a lv 5 vampire and since he can only control lv 10 HD worth of vampire/vampire spawns, you can be free.
Life is hard. You work. You suffer. You spend years upon years on this damn earth, living a life you didn't ask for. Then, after years of this dreadfulness, you finally die and can actually rest forever. But no! Along comes a good ol' necromancer. "Awaken", he says. "No, Necromancer. F*ck you, let me sleep!" I say.
Necromancers are evil.
I've had this argument with the dead so many times lol
Comments
And yes, it's impossible not to mention Liches, one of the ultimate foes in fantasy RPGs, and almost universally seen as evil and power incarnate. Becoming a Lich is the ultimate final frontier of Necromancy, not unlike what Voldemort did with his Horcruxes.
Here is the process to become a Lich
Most people, even today, have some fear and also a significant investiture of emotional pain surrounding death. We don’t want to die (survival instinct) and we may know close loved ones who have died.
When our loved ones die, we want to see them again. It would be great if they could just live again! Now imagine your horror if that person who died, her corpse rotting in the ground, was suddenly moving around again... but wasn’t anything close to what she was in life. Perhaps your once-lover, with whom you parted with on such good terms (or even bad terms), now wishes to harm you. Maybe they are even being controlled by some other evil force or person against their will.
Such ideas make for easy antagonistic objects in writing and literature, both ancient and modern. Most people fear death, so associate death with -insert plot point here- and it becomes undesirable to most people. That undesirability translated readily into “evil”.
Snakes are also very often objectified as evil in cultures all over the world. Dragons are one of the few things that all cultures have in common (along with common themes in the “creation” legend, among other things, but that is for another discussion), though they aren’t necessarily treated as evil in eastern cultures.
I recently read a theory about this. The hypothesis is that snakes are the most ancient and among the most effective predators of mammals in evolution. Mammals’ generally superior eyesight may have been a result of a survival need to detect snakes.
In essence, snakes are connected to our survival instinct through evolution. And death is the means of our survival instinct. So, that humans fear death to keep them alive, and snakes were for millennia directly caused death, our species has evolved to characterize both death and snakes as “evil,” because we fear both, because both go against the basic common human instinct to survive.
Thus, necromancy, by extension, and snakes/dragons are easy objects of antagonism in writing.
"If the vampire instead drains the victim’s Constitution to 0 or lower, the victim returns as a spawn if it had 4 or less HD and as a vampire if it had 5 or more HD. In either case, the new vampire or spawn is under the command of the vampire that created it and remains enslaved until its master’s destruction. At any given time a vampire may have enslaved spawn totaling no more than twice its own Hit Dice; any spawn it creates that would exceed this limit are created as free-willed vampires or vampire spawn. A vampire that is enslaved may create and enslave spawn of its own, so a master vampire can control a number of lesser vampires in this fashion. A vampire may voluntarily free an enslaved spawn in order to enslave a new spawn, but once freed, a vampire or vampire spawn cannot be enslaved again."
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Vampire
To be a lich, you need to fulfill a lot of requirements(see the video that i have posted), be bitten by a vampire with less than half of your HD is IMHO more easy. Mainly if you are a lv 18+ sorc/wiz. Simple find a lv 5 vampire and since he can only control lv 10 HD worth of vampire/vampire spawns, you can be free.
Necromancers can be royal advisers in the Ashan setting, and are not seen as automatically evil, although many of them are.
For the most part, necromancy in Ashan is just seen as a fact of life, "the way things are." Deceased souls are taken care of and governed by one of five dragon gods. Through magical power and incantation, they can be brought back as skeletons, ghouls, ghosts, vampires, and liches, often voluntarily, sometimes not. The lower end undead are seen as neutral automatons under the control of the necromancer who summoned them, similar to golems. Higher end sentient undead usually have made some kind of bargain with the necromancer they serve and have returned to service willingly. (Heroes of Might and Magic is a strategy game where you build armies and castles and fight for control of maps.) Some of them are necromancers themselves, like Anastasia, who is a raised undead being.
As always, the common people are distrustful of necromancers and necromancer armies, and some political factions consider them automatic enemies. There are plenty of examples of corrupt necromancers who use the undead for nefarious ends. All magic is viewed with a certain amount of distrust, and is seen as an activity of the elite. All the necromancer characters in the game are of noble birth.
I think that @subtledoctor provided the best answer for that question: it's because of tabooos conntected with dead body - so it's evil because of the same reasons why Achilles mutaliting Hector's body is evil.
Other possibility is internal philosophy of a setting - for example, I think that raising dead body is considered evil magic in Harry Potter's universe because one of it's on-going themes is acceptance of death and it's place in natural order. In first book Dumbledore says that death is natural and nothing to be afraid of. Antagonist, Voldemort, is seeking ways to achieve immortality, regardless of price. So, necromancy is evil. The same thing goes for Tolkien and his Ringwraiths, and, more deeply with entire fate of Man - you can say that entire story of Numenore revolves around that topic.
But! If you have something like Eragon, then it's probably based on tradition - and eventually it returns to poor Hector.
Our soul and our morality should be respected, and ours alone to heighten or debase; commit or surrender. By our committed will.
@SorcererV1ct0r :
A radical wing in a youth political movement in Sweden wanted to legalise necrophilia - sex with corpses - in case the dead person made a will to that effect.
That position was not universally supported, even if morally impeccable, as such.
In case you join the rather easy condemnation there - do you not think souls are way more challenging?