>>113080484I used to think like that, 'yeah, necromancy is just another form of magic, its not inherantly evil, evokers can toss around fireballs, that's just as destructive'
But if such magic did exist, the ability to manipulate life force and raise the dead WOULD be mentally corruptive and far more deadly than the most skilled fireball thrower. It's a combo of slippery slopes and a dash of unseen consequences. It really becomes apparent if you get necromancy being practised openly, by many people, in a society. Lets do the consequences first.
You and everyone else raise some zombies to help you fight, carry your things, etc. Being a bunch of medieval fuckwits, when your rotting servants inevitably fester some plague and infect those around them, evil spirits or some old lady is going to get the blame. Unpleasant is an understatement when it comes to the smell and filth of a realistic undead. Anything but the dustiest bones will cause rampant plagues as it totters around doing your bidding, innards dissolving into diseased goo under the sun.
So while rampant necromancers foster disease and filth with their servants, potentially killing thousands a year, the real kicker is a necromancers skill to shuffle around life force. Wounded? Hunt a deer, slit it's throat, and vacuum up that delicious essence. Spells need more oomph? Couple wayward souls could power that. Sick and weak dying? Well they are just wasting life force at that point, the longer we wait the less there will be! This is the slippery slope, the greed that necromancy demands.
You and every other necromancer in town need more servants, but you've emptied the graveyard ages ago. What do? Criminals on death row are an option. Homeless are another. A war would make lots of bodies, so that's an option. Where do you draw the line? Would a replication of the meat industry, millions of cows reared and slaughtered, their essence used to fuel spells, be the only answer? Is that entirely ethical?
1/2
