QES
Court Jester
Deathling said:What if a bunch of necromancers began making the undead move for a good cause? Their leader wouldn't be undead, but they would only produce undead as units. Of course, this would change their whole growth process. The citizens would either be offsprings of the necromancers, or the new undead (those necromancers who died and were instantly reanimated?), basically they would never die of hunger because of all of the working undead and even if the lands weren't sterile, they would just die and become undead citizens.
MEANS gentlemen, MEANS. Morality does not like in the "what" or even the "why" but the HOW. Good intentions aside, the means of pursuing goals is what makes something evil or good. And while we can argue about necromacy NOT being evil, it is hard to claim that necromacy is EVER good. Anything dealing with death, and the control (even to good ends) therein is not a "good" means. Let me put it this way. You have a guy, he's magical. WHy should he use Zombies to build the childrens hospital, when he could use telekenesis? WHy use magic at all when he could HIRE laborers? The point is that while yes, it might be COOL, and we dont necessarily want "bad guys" THe fundamental truth is that someones corpse (even ones own) is being used to an end. This USE as a means, cannot justify the ends. The best "undead" peoples can do is neutral, not "good". And while there may be individual exceptions to this rule.....some profoundly intersting characters...it is hard to concieve of a society/civilization that is benevolent, caring, and just, while also making use of the undead. We can try to neuter to our best abilities the social stygmas attached to death and undeath, but that does not neccessitate "good" all it does is remove the "evil". "To not be evil" does not imply "to be good".
-Qes
P.s. Yes im rehashing, and only because I want to make it clear that we can come up with "exceptions" all day long, but there are reasons they are "exceptions" and not the norm.