Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[Rolan7]

Yeah... I *was* being intentionally edgy, but I also found such a disconnect in your (Scriver) response that I figured it wasn't worth arguing!

I do understand respecting a body, but only as a symbol of the person who's no longer around.  A particularly important possession (unintentional sorta-pun?) but very distinct from the actual person.
I was tempted to make this conversation a little too real, so let's pretend I'm only talking about DND - where the mind + soul fly off to an afterlife.  And as best as I can tell, enjoy (or suffer) and eventually dissolve into that afterlife regardless of what is done to their body.

In 3.5e.  As I pointed out, 5e "animation" might pull part of the mind back.  Maybe it's the same "residual memories" Speak With Dead always used without touching the deceased mind/soul, but my GM took it as binding the mind to the corpse.  Status of soul: uncertain, potentially a power source.  The mind/soul distinction is tricky.

Fakedit

What do they think about Enchantment tho

Quakers aren't strictly sober but they appear to value temperance.  Along with other vaguely remembered bits about their practices, I think they take a dim view on *fucking with people's minds*.

[Egan_BW]

I'll have to agree that enchantment can be ickier than necromancy (of the kind where you turn someone's corpse into an undead creature), depending on the exact unstated mechanics of necromancy. I can imagine, and have occasionally seen, settings where necromancy is an honorable thing.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that animating a corpse would preclude that person from being resurrected until the undead is destroyed. So using someone's corpse as a handy vessel for your pet lower energy spirit would also mean you've given up on bringing that person back.

[scriver]

Yeah... I *was* being intentionally edgy, but I also found such a disconnect in your (Scriver) response that I figured it wasn't worth arguing!

What's disconnectant about it?

[Jimmy]

I've always found it amusing that Charm Person is the basis for pretty much all the D&D love potions. Just add a dash of Rohypnol for that perfect date!

[pikachu17]

I've always found it amusing that Charm Person is the basis for pretty much all the D&D love potions. Just add a dash of Rohypnol for that perfect date!

I... don't see how it's amusing.
That is exactly what the date rape drug of the medieval era should have as a basis, the date rape spell.

[Cruxador]

I've always found it amusing that Charm Person is the basis for pretty much all the D&D love potions. Just add a dash of Rohypnol for that perfect date!

I... don't see how it's amusing.
That is exactly what the date rape drug of the medieval era should have as a basis, the date rape spell.

Were they actually casting date rape spells on each other in the medieval period?

[Loud Whispers]

I've always found it amusing that Charm Person is the basis for pretty much all the D&D love potions. Just add a dash of Rohypnol for that perfect date!

I... don't see how it's amusing.
That is exactly what the date rape drug of the medieval era should have as a basis, the date rape spell.

Were they actually casting date rape spells on each other in the medieval period?

Succubi and incubi gotta come from somewhere

[pikachu17]

I've always found it amusing that Charm Person is the basis for pretty much all the D&D love potions. Just add a dash of Rohypnol for that perfect date!

I... don't see how it's amusing.
That is exactly what the date rape drug of the medieval era should have as a basis, the date rape spell.

Were they actually casting date rape spells on each other in the medieval period?

No not actually AFAIK, but plenty of medieval tales have such spells and potions in them, which is what I was referring to.

[Rolan7]

Yeah... I *was* being intentionally edgy, but I also found such a disconnect in your (Scriver) response that I figured it wasn't worth arguing!

What's disconnectant about it?

Sorry for not replying sooner- I wasn't criticizing your post.  I observed a cultural disconnect where you find dead bodies sacrosanct, and I don't.  I dropped the issue since I had no hope or desire to change your mind.

I may have read too much into your response, though.  We both agree that dead bodies should be treated with respect.
Just as much as the other items left behind by the dearly departed.

[IcyTea31]

It makes for interesting thought experiment about the creepiness of the different schools of magic.

There already are many people who in their last will and testament agree that their body can be used for spare parts. Would organ donation be any different from instead allowing your entire body to be raised and used for work?

Say a chip is invented which, when installed into a brain, subtly influences one's behaviour so as to make them a better person. Would it be ethical to install the chip in unwilling patients, for example as part of a program to release prisoners from prison?

True Polymorph can change any object into any other, including an inanimate object into a sapient creature and vice versa. If I polymorph you into an inanimate object, use part of that object for a project, then polymorph the remainder back to you exactly as you were, have I done wrong?

The spell Awakening means that all beasts are potentially sapient. What does this mean for the meat industry?

What would be the strongest divination spell you'd allow a government agency to use on you? Would it be ethical to use something like Detect Evil as evidence in court? Would this be any different from the idea of "evil genes"?

I'm not actually expecting answers to any of these.

[scriver]

It makes for interesting thought experiment about the creepiness of the different schools of magic.

There already are many people who in their last will and testament agree that their body can be used for spare parts. Would organ donation be any different from instead allowing your entire body to be raised and used for work?

It depends firstly on whether or not they would consider said bodies to be desecrated (like with generic dnd) or whether serving in unlife is considered an honour (like in Morrowind with tomb guardians).

Secondly it would depend on what the work is. The Morrowindian tomb guardians are considered an honour because you're becoming a servant of your ancestors, guarding and protecting the resting place. I doubt Mr Plebbington raised to muck the stables would be considered as positive development.

And thirdly, the power perspective. When we give up our organs it is a selfless action, never benefiting ourselves. In this example, that would be a person by the letter of what you said, somebody willingly giving up their body without expectation of return, perhaps because they want to aid their settlement with whatever, that's all well and good. But if it's a pauper selling their future vacated body to feed their family it because horrible very fast just as it does with organ trade in real life.

Although an interesting variant (if still very morally ambigious) would be a person "renting" the work of their corpse and their descendants then gaining it's wage until the body disintegrates.

[IcyTea31]

That actually reminds me of Starfinder. In the setting, undead aren't always considered evil (as it can be achieved with technology as much as negative energy) and sapient ones can be citizens like any other. On the planet of the Necrovites, Eox, there's a standard deal of eternal unlife in exchange for a few centuries of indentured servitude. Surprisingly many find that to be a good deal.

[scriver]

the Necrovites

So, Paizo, what are you gonna call your faction of necromancers?

Hmmm... How about the Death-Lifes? No, too on the nose... gotta spice it up in some way...

[Cruxador]

the Necrovites

So, Paizo, what are you gonna call your faction of necromancers?

Hmmm... How about the Death-Lifes? No, too on the nose... gotta spice it up in some way...

I assume the process was more like "they're necromancers so we should use "necro" to make them easy to remember. To make them a faction or creed, -ite is an appropriate suffix. "Necroite" is weird to pronounce and looks like it could have multiple different readings. What do you guys reckon is the spookiest consonant?"

[pikachu17]

the Necrovites

So, Paizo, what are you gonna call your faction of necromancers?

Hmmm... How about the Death-Lifes? No, too on the nose... gotta spice it up in some way...

I assume the process was more like "they're necromancers so we should use "necro" to make them easy to remember. To make them a faction or creed, -ite is an appropriate suffix. "Necroite" is weird to pronounce and looks like it could have multiple different readings. What do you guys reckon is the spookiest consonant?"

Z. It's like an even more intimidating hissing sound.
The z sound also makes me think of bees and chainsaws.