Once a person is rezzed, he's alive. Rezzing him was an act against Nature, but now the person is indeed alive. Letting a living being suffer in agony and die is evil if you have the means to prevent it, so Dallid will heal a rezzed person back to health.
When the rules change, and someone can't be rezzed until the body is properly prepared by a healer, then Dallid won't be helping anymore, as 1) He doesn't work with dead things, and 2) he won't do something that will enable a resurrection.
Now, resurrecting a person into another body is worse, since it requires death to bring about the act against nature. But, again, the resurrected person is alive, and killing the living is wrong. Dallid holds nothing against the resurrected. Now, the resurrectors, that's another matter. But no one's gone up to Dallid and said 'Hey! I killed a guy in cold blood and put my friend in him!'
If a resurrected person was undead, banish would destroy him. Dallid has destroyed PCs who were 'raised', but banish hasn't worked on the resurrected.
Ideas and Questiosn from the Event
Moderator: Admin
Oh I see a plot brewing.
Cant wait!
Here is teh situation!
Person A dies here the head was eaten though
Person B dies
Both die by the hands of Calude when transformed.
A person lets say a femal married to person A is so desperate to get her husband back uses the body of person B who is the husband of some other person. Now the rez is over. Person A is happy to be alive while the wife of person B is in shock and SUFFERING seeing her dead husband sleeping with another person. Finally she understand that she could have her husband back since it is still within the 1 month time limit of Rez and wants her husbands body back so to perform a rez/
I am so targetting this to you Doug. Im going to see if you kill the abomination causing Suffering against a living person so to help anohter!
MUHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA
Cant wait!
Here is teh situation!
Person A dies here the head was eaten though
Person B dies
Both die by the hands of Calude when transformed.
A person lets say a femal married to person A is so desperate to get her husband back uses the body of person B who is the husband of some other person. Now the rez is over. Person A is happy to be alive while the wife of person B is in shock and SUFFERING seeing her dead husband sleeping with another person. Finally she understand that she could have her husband back since it is still within the 1 month time limit of Rez and wants her husbands body back so to perform a rez/
I am so targetting this to you Doug. Im going to see if you kill the abomination causing Suffering against a living person so to help anohter!
MUHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
-
Claude du Sinjin
- Town Member
- Posts: 321
- Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:48 pm
- Location: Cocytus
-
Lambic
- Town Member
- Posts: 783
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:50 pm
- Location: Where his horn is filled.
- Contact:
No honestly I wasn't factoring that in my post. SorryGM_Chris wrote:Did you notice the memory wipe, and my example was open court.
You are right for the most part that is impossible to commit the perfect murder. This has been true since the dawn of time though. Good that fiction world follows real world.
I thought fiction was all about doing what you can't in the real world
As far as I know the closest to a instance of someone being killed for a body to ressurect someone, the Havenites were sent to look for a dead body, ran into a problem, and ended up with a fresh dead body. Not exactly right, but not the pure evil people seem to want to percieve it as. All other bodies were the dead aggressors. Which maybe rude but not evil.
Lambic for one has thought about all this people being brought back from the dead. He was faced with it almost immediately when he got to the haven. He just doesn't see it the same way as Dallid or Duegar (sp?). But that could have something to do with him spending soooo much time in the wastes.
You wait Doug till I frame it properly and I have Karen all in a tizzy playing the wife of the husband who is walking around a corpse boinking her neighbor.
LOL while I am at it why not have a guy bring people who dies and turn them into sheep HAHAHAHAHAHA
LOL while I am at it why not have a guy bring people who dies and turn them into sheep HAHAHAHAHAHA
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
Bring it. 
These are EASY moral choices for Dallid. Now, having to choose between healing all the sick animals before him or continuing on after the Aspects of Chaos and Creation - now THAT was tough. It broke him - had the poor guy in tears. And had Doug sitting at the computer for a quarter-hour wondering exactly what WOULD Dallid do.
These are EASY moral choices for Dallid. Now, having to choose between healing all the sick animals before him or continuing on after the Aspects of Chaos and Creation - now THAT was tough. It broke him - had the poor guy in tears. And had Doug sitting at the computer for a quarter-hour wondering exactly what WOULD Dallid do.Learn the past. Observe the present. Guide the future.
-
Ian_McAllister
- Town Member
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:30 pm
- Location: Final Haven
- Contact:
Blondie.. Quote from "Ravenous".. I think the name was.. so funny.
As for raising someone into another person's body, I am all about that being an abomination and have already stated that if that is the only recourse to bring me back, let me be.
As for standard Empath Rezzing, as a character, if someone's essence can be recalled into their original body, and they wish it, then it is in the best interests of Haven to bring them back.
As for whether Rezzing is Necromantic, i would say yes.. but are the people brought back undead.. I do not agree.. I see Undead as those that are given the "semblance" of life through magic.. while an Empath is actually able to restore the essence of a person's body.. bringing them back to full life, not a semblance.
As for raising someone into another person's body, I am all about that being an abomination and have already stated that if that is the only recourse to bring me back, let me be.
As for standard Empath Rezzing, as a character, if someone's essence can be recalled into their original body, and they wish it, then it is in the best interests of Haven to bring them back.
As for whether Rezzing is Necromantic, i would say yes.. but are the people brought back undead.. I do not agree.. I see Undead as those that are given the "semblance" of life through magic.. while an Empath is actually able to restore the essence of a person's body.. bringing them back to full life, not a semblance.
Your Knowledge cannot save you,
Your Magic cannot save you,
Nothing can save you!
Your Magic cannot save you,
Nothing can save you!
-
Donovan Thynedar
- Town Member
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 2:18 am
- Location: With his beloved at the end of all things.
- Contact:
Is resurrection necromancy?
Well, that depends on your definition of necromancy, of course. By it's oldest (and literal) definition it is not necromancy since the purpose is not divining or communing with the dead. Transposing the Greek root for the Latin one, "Corpse Magic" becomes "Black Magic" and we find ouselves in another semantic bind.
Is resurrection "Black Magic"?
Well, in a world lacking a moral absolute, that question is entirely subjective. Indeed, the term "Black" (as a negative connotation) was likely only applied to the sorts or rites and rituals now associated with necromancy because the church wanted to label and demean pagan practices. Since there is no god (and therefore no church) in FH, we strike out here as well.
Is "resurrection" unnatural?
Here is, as Chargoth would say, another sticky wicket. What exactly is "unnatural"? If magic and people are both natural parts of the world, how can any use of magic by people be unnatural? Is there a distinction between natural and unnatural magic? If so, what? In our world people saw the cycle of life and death as the natural order of things. Breaking that cycle was considered "unnatural" because it violated the rules of the world - a world considered to be devoid of magic. In a magic-rich world, it is entirely feasible that returning from death in one form or another is very much a natural phenomenon. For a real world example, take the Hindu concept of reincarnation. It is accepted as "the way of things" and not considered unnatural at all. They key lies in the acceptance. With no social authority or precedent in FH, acceptance is once again personally subjective. We import much of our own value system into FH, but there is nothing saying our characters must agree.
Is "Magic" unnatural?
Also a difficult question. There are certainly different types of magic, and the distinctions can be rather tricky. By "natural", does one mean something native as opposed to something alien? Or does one mean occuring without intervention as opposed to occuring artificially? If "natural" is seen as something native, then all magic is natural in a world that has magic. If "natural" is seen as occuring without intervention than all magic is unnatural. Unless, of course, people are considered part of nature - then all magic is natural again.
Truth be told, "natural" is most often used by Group X to describe the worldview that Group X is comfortable with.
What do I think?
I try not to.
What does Donovan think?
Donovan places a great deal of focus on intent, which can be just as dangerous as any other philisophical base. A person attempting to do good is not committing evil. Their action may be catastrophically wrong, but it is not evil. The difference between something detrimental (or accidental) and something evil is the deliberateness of the wrongdoing. Thus, magic used for cruelty, oppression or dominion would be evil, while compassionately resurrecting someone who fell in battle would not be evil. Killing in cold blood would be evil, so deliberately killing to use the body for a reincarnation would be evil. He would likely carry that "evil" over on to the reincarnation itself, since evil provided the body, though he would recognize the slight inconsistency therein.
Actually, this frame of thought highlights the difference between the modes in which I've played the character. In one mode (one with a darker worldview) the focus on intent can be used to justify acts of severe brutality since the intent - and not the act itself - is what determines the morality. Killing to protect or defend is perfectly justifiable, as is torture, sorcery, or even genocide. If one is willing to accept killing as justifiable under certain circumstances, who gets to set those circumstances? The same thing goes for necromancy. If it is ever OK, when is it not?
The line between right and wrong is fuzzy in the Haven, and in his darker times Donovan knows it. Butchering and burning an invading army is something to be celebrated, but drinking out of a human head is to be shunned? Which is the greater offense - killing or drinking? The unspoken excuse was that the killing was allowable because it was done in self defense - without evil intent, essentially putting Haven on the same slippery slope that Donovan himself was on. "The Shadowhammer" tried to point that out just before the online events at Frostfell, though I have no idea if anyone was listening.
In the positive mode, the outlook can become truly hopeful. By trying to discern the intent behind actions that might at first seem evil, one often realizes that there is some measure of goodness in almost everyone. The doppelgangers that raided us for food are a perfect example. Raiding for food to save a starving family is something that most of us would excuse (Robin Hood, anyone?), and so instead of judging them to be evil Donovan looked for the motivations behind their actions. When they proved responsive and reasonable, he sought some form of cooperation and peace. Again, their intent was the key. When Arthos and Giddeon were found alive it helped reinforce his hopes for cooperation. Sure, it's entirely possible that they were lying again and were really minions of the Dragon after the Aspects, but Donovan doesn't know that.
Getting back to the Ressurection issue, I think it's something too complex to label "right" or "wrong" from a general perspective. Each character will have a different opinion, as will each player. I think that we may see a great deal of situational agreement as to whether something is right or wrong, but I don't know that we'll be able to discern an applicable standard here and now.
Well, that depends on your definition of necromancy, of course. By it's oldest (and literal) definition it is not necromancy since the purpose is not divining or communing with the dead. Transposing the Greek root for the Latin one, "Corpse Magic" becomes "Black Magic" and we find ouselves in another semantic bind.
Is resurrection "Black Magic"?
Well, in a world lacking a moral absolute, that question is entirely subjective. Indeed, the term "Black" (as a negative connotation) was likely only applied to the sorts or rites and rituals now associated with necromancy because the church wanted to label and demean pagan practices. Since there is no god (and therefore no church) in FH, we strike out here as well.
Is "resurrection" unnatural?
Here is, as Chargoth would say, another sticky wicket. What exactly is "unnatural"? If magic and people are both natural parts of the world, how can any use of magic by people be unnatural? Is there a distinction between natural and unnatural magic? If so, what? In our world people saw the cycle of life and death as the natural order of things. Breaking that cycle was considered "unnatural" because it violated the rules of the world - a world considered to be devoid of magic. In a magic-rich world, it is entirely feasible that returning from death in one form or another is very much a natural phenomenon. For a real world example, take the Hindu concept of reincarnation. It is accepted as "the way of things" and not considered unnatural at all. They key lies in the acceptance. With no social authority or precedent in FH, acceptance is once again personally subjective. We import much of our own value system into FH, but there is nothing saying our characters must agree.
Is "Magic" unnatural?
Also a difficult question. There are certainly different types of magic, and the distinctions can be rather tricky. By "natural", does one mean something native as opposed to something alien? Or does one mean occuring without intervention as opposed to occuring artificially? If "natural" is seen as something native, then all magic is natural in a world that has magic. If "natural" is seen as occuring without intervention than all magic is unnatural. Unless, of course, people are considered part of nature - then all magic is natural again.
Truth be told, "natural" is most often used by Group X to describe the worldview that Group X is comfortable with.
What do I think?
I try not to.
What does Donovan think?
Donovan places a great deal of focus on intent, which can be just as dangerous as any other philisophical base. A person attempting to do good is not committing evil. Their action may be catastrophically wrong, but it is not evil. The difference between something detrimental (or accidental) and something evil is the deliberateness of the wrongdoing. Thus, magic used for cruelty, oppression or dominion would be evil, while compassionately resurrecting someone who fell in battle would not be evil. Killing in cold blood would be evil, so deliberately killing to use the body for a reincarnation would be evil. He would likely carry that "evil" over on to the reincarnation itself, since evil provided the body, though he would recognize the slight inconsistency therein.
Actually, this frame of thought highlights the difference between the modes in which I've played the character. In one mode (one with a darker worldview) the focus on intent can be used to justify acts of severe brutality since the intent - and not the act itself - is what determines the morality. Killing to protect or defend is perfectly justifiable, as is torture, sorcery, or even genocide. If one is willing to accept killing as justifiable under certain circumstances, who gets to set those circumstances? The same thing goes for necromancy. If it is ever OK, when is it not?
The line between right and wrong is fuzzy in the Haven, and in his darker times Donovan knows it. Butchering and burning an invading army is something to be celebrated, but drinking out of a human head is to be shunned? Which is the greater offense - killing or drinking? The unspoken excuse was that the killing was allowable because it was done in self defense - without evil intent, essentially putting Haven on the same slippery slope that Donovan himself was on. "The Shadowhammer" tried to point that out just before the online events at Frostfell, though I have no idea if anyone was listening.
In the positive mode, the outlook can become truly hopeful. By trying to discern the intent behind actions that might at first seem evil, one often realizes that there is some measure of goodness in almost everyone. The doppelgangers that raided us for food are a perfect example. Raiding for food to save a starving family is something that most of us would excuse (Robin Hood, anyone?), and so instead of judging them to be evil Donovan looked for the motivations behind their actions. When they proved responsive and reasonable, he sought some form of cooperation and peace. Again, their intent was the key. When Arthos and Giddeon were found alive it helped reinforce his hopes for cooperation. Sure, it's entirely possible that they were lying again and were really minions of the Dragon after the Aspects, but Donovan doesn't know that.
Getting back to the Ressurection issue, I think it's something too complex to label "right" or "wrong" from a general perspective. Each character will have a different opinion, as will each player. I think that we may see a great deal of situational agreement as to whether something is right or wrong, but I don't know that we'll be able to discern an applicable standard here and now.
One should rather die than be betrayed. There is no deceit in death. It delivers precisely what it has promised. Betrayal, though ... betrayal is the willful slaughter of hope.
Very well said
Very well said Taki!
I believe the point to this post is death to easy to overcome in the current rules. It is my opinion it is. What small changes in the curent rules can be done to make death harder to come back from.
1. people come back at -20 instead of -15
2. helaer has to prepare the body and judge if the body is capable of recieving the spirit. Aka after 1 minute of perperation, the a chip is drawn from the bag. If it is red, the person is permently dead, if it is white, they can be brought back.
3. The empath's res time is decreased down to 1/2 hour.
Simple and to the point.
I believe the point to this post is death to easy to overcome in the current rules. It is my opinion it is. What small changes in the curent rules can be done to make death harder to come back from.
1. people come back at -20 instead of -15
2. helaer has to prepare the body and judge if the body is capable of recieving the spirit. Aka after 1 minute of perperation, the a chip is drawn from the bag. If it is red, the person is permently dead, if it is white, they can be brought back.
3. The empath's res time is decreased down to 1/2 hour.
Simple and to the point.
My Thoughts
Aaron
Aaron
Right. When all is said and done, 'good' and 'evil' are often relative.
When a person is rezzed, their essence is pulled back from the ether.
Now Dallid believes that when that happens, Phantera basically says, "WTF?!? Hey! That's mine! I was USING that! I had it earmarked for contributions to a patch of clovers, a dog named 'Sandy', two earwigs, and the restoration of an island! You just screwed up my WHOLE itinerary!"
Based on that belief, he thinks rezzing is wrong. Now, anyone who doesn't think there's a Grand Driving Purpose for Everything will find nothing wrong in rezzing. They might think it was that energy's destiny to come back into its former body. They'd see rezzing as doing good.
All relative.
When a person is rezzed, their essence is pulled back from the ether.
Now Dallid believes that when that happens, Phantera basically says, "WTF?!? Hey! That's mine! I was USING that! I had it earmarked for contributions to a patch of clovers, a dog named 'Sandy', two earwigs, and the restoration of an island! You just screwed up my WHOLE itinerary!"
Based on that belief, he thinks rezzing is wrong. Now, anyone who doesn't think there's a Grand Driving Purpose for Everything will find nothing wrong in rezzing. They might think it was that energy's destiny to come back into its former body. They'd see rezzing as doing good.
All relative.
Learn the past. Observe the present. Guide the future.
What is Evil really? I mean we all have our own definitions of it, there really is no universal standard where you cross into evil. Atrum would say that bringing someone back that can help in defending Haven is good, and if you have to take an enemies life to do it, all the better, one less person to fight. In his mind eventually that person would be dead if the battles go as best they can anyway and atleast his body can be used to help. Now as for my RP definition of evil that would be the respect or lack thereof of sentient life. Or would you kill someone in cold blood to further your goals, however noble or despicable those goals are. obviously according to this definition Atrum, and anyone else that has gone along on or suggested any of the assasination missions with him would be evil. He wouldn't see it that way but I do.
Now as for intent, that's just as gray an area IMO. Even if in your heart you believe that your intent is just and right, that doesn't neccesarily make it not evil. Hitler by all accounts truly believed that he was creating and ushering in a better world and that history would see it that way once all was said and done. Many KKK members believe that caucasin superiority gives them the right and the duty of keeping the other races in check so to speak. Thus making the world a better place than it could be if niggerdom(thanks for the word Dave Chapelle) ran rampant.
Doug, it's really intersting the similarities and dichotimies in our characters. Both have a code that they tend to refer to to help them with decisions, and both I would say are honorable men. Atrum, howver would see Dallid's animal delima as simple. Stop the souce from reaking more havoc and then deal with what it left in it's wake once it's dealt with. He would see letting the animals slow the completion of that goal like the kid with fingers and toes in a dyke that keeps springing more leaks. Now the situation where he had to decide whether or not to attack someone he called friend in Robert to keep him out of what would have been the ensuing fight where the fake Silverthorne was gonna be bumrushed, THAT was a very very hard thing for Atrum to decide. He knew that Robert would definitely be very upset and probably never truly be a friend after that, but it was either that or end up fighting him in combat as he would certainly have defended the false king.
Now as for intent, that's just as gray an area IMO. Even if in your heart you believe that your intent is just and right, that doesn't neccesarily make it not evil. Hitler by all accounts truly believed that he was creating and ushering in a better world and that history would see it that way once all was said and done. Many KKK members believe that caucasin superiority gives them the right and the duty of keeping the other races in check so to speak. Thus making the world a better place than it could be if niggerdom(thanks for the word Dave Chapelle) ran rampant.
Doug, it's really intersting the similarities and dichotimies in our characters. Both have a code that they tend to refer to to help them with decisions, and both I would say are honorable men. Atrum, howver would see Dallid's animal delima as simple. Stop the souce from reaking more havoc and then deal with what it left in it's wake once it's dealt with. He would see letting the animals slow the completion of that goal like the kid with fingers and toes in a dyke that keeps springing more leaks. Now the situation where he had to decide whether or not to attack someone he called friend in Robert to keep him out of what would have been the ensuing fight where the fake Silverthorne was gonna be bumrushed, THAT was a very very hard thing for Atrum to decide. He knew that Robert would definitely be very upset and probably never truly be a friend after that, but it was either that or end up fighting him in combat as he would certainly have defended the false king.
Death=Adder
One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...
~Pink Floyd~
One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...
~Pink Floyd~
-
Eilonwy
- Town Member
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:00 pm
- Location: Drinking the bloody visions away.
All this makes me wonder, where do the GM's "universal" definitions for the game lie? Or are there none and it is up to the individual character to decide for themselves? Obviously, each character will decide even if there is a certain way the FH universe is "supposed to be".
I guess I just want to know whether the world/universe is being set up with absolutes or being left to relativity. Then I'll at least know where the GM's are coming from, regardless of my own or even my characters views.
I guess I just want to know whether the world/universe is being set up with absolutes or being left to relativity. Then I'll at least know where the GM's are coming from, regardless of my own or even my characters views.
E. E. Nightshade of Clan Campbell