I've been thinking and reading and watching things recently regarding various aspects of necromancy in RPGs. Specifically there seems to be a lot of debate as to whether it's a good thing having necromancers as PCs and whether or not necromancy constitutes an inherently immoral thing etc etc. You know, the usual stuff. I don't know if it's specifically my own inclination for morbid fascination with bones and skulls, or whether it's something that most people find, if not interesting as such in a way that makes it an enjoyable subject, at least intriguing, at least something which pulls at their imagination, at least something grimly alluring, but the idea of Necromancy is interesting. Let's say that, at least. Interesting.
 |
| By 'interesting' I think I mean 'has held an enduring fascination for thinkers and artists since the conception of mortality'. |
What's also interesting perhaps is an examination of possible reasons why it is often looked upon as morally reprehensible. So many times I've been reading about this and I come across the same kind of argument. It's the idea that necromancy, as a force is amoral and thus separate from its actual use and application. If someone uses it in an immoral way, then it is immoral, and presumably the converse is also true. If someone uses necromancy in a moral way, or avoids using it in an immoral way, they are fine (if still a little bit kind of creeeeepy or just morbid).
But in regular D&D, a necromancer has very little choice but to use it in these supposedly immoral ways. The only choices they have when it comes to using the most effective and powerful spells is to raise and bind the dead, to leech the breath and life from the living and twist it, to wrench it away and use it for whatever their own purpose may be. To kill. The general kind of thinking, I would imagine, goes along the lines of 'what's the point of being a necromancer if you don't want hordes of undead followers to do your foul bidding? The minions are what it's all about!' See my previous post regarding effectiveness and its incompatibility with roleplaying.
But what if there actually was a real choice? A choice that profoundly affected the way a necromancer approached their interactions with the living as well as the deceased.
In my previous post, I speculated upon how the structure of the universe is very important when dealing with things like magic, the dead, and interactions therewith. So to begin with we have the kind of necromancer bent upon indentured servitude through binding the deceased, or the bodies thereof. The issue of whether this constitutes actual slavery depends upon the sentience of the dead when they are bound, but I think it is far more interesting to suggest that there really are souls or perhaps consciousnesses involved in there somewhere, otherwise it would be too similar to simply animating any kind of inanimate object. No, the significance of raising the dead is that it is far easier when one uses a spirit that used to be alive. Instead of going through the rigmarole of animating say a statue, with all the complexity of giving a kind of effective artificial intelligence (which, as we know, is much easier said than done), one can dip into the ether and hunt for an erstwhile living, breathing thing that knows how to think, knows how to inhabit a body.
I suppose a neat parallel I could draw would be the relationship between mages, demons, and the fade in the Dragon Age series. The power of mages comes from the fade, and the demons therein are often bargained with or contracted to servitude with varying degrees of success by mortal mages. This relationship hinges upon slavery and maintaining a tight control over the spirits in order for them to be used and manipulated as the mage wants. However, this does not really speak of an actual relationship between sentient creatures, only one of pragmatism and efficiency. The main alternative to this, I feel, is presented in Inquisition where Solas (we'll ignore any plot related points on how Solas is .. well, I don't want to give away any spoilers for those who haven't played) and his interactions with the spirits of the fade, which are far more mutual, more along the lines of sentient creatures' understanding each other and, although they are of different kind, different nature, they act towards each other with respect. The taboos regarding interactions with demons and the dangers of possession etc etc are disregarded by him because he understands their motivations and has an empathetic kind of relationship with them. He sticks largely to his world, they stick largely to theirs, but there is a meaningful relationship formed between the two. I suppose it is this which I am trying to suggest can be reflected in the workings of the necromancer.
The key theme we see emerging here is one of imposition. The projection of one's will onto another without their consent leads to the subtraction of agency from the dominated party. When a prospective necromancer binds dead spirits or bodies to his or her service, they are stripping this erstwhile person of their free will, taking away what makes/made them human. This works whether or not one chooses to include the existence of souls in their RPGs. A human's body, whether they are dead or not, if often thought to still essentially be subject to the right of bodily integrity, hence the taboo regarding grave robbing and the sanctity of the corpse. Whether you ascribe active agency or not to a person's dead body and/or soul results in the same issues when one attempts to interfere with them.
This feels like a complex issue, but the crux that I am getting at is that there appears to be two opposing approaches to interaction with the dead.
Two different strands of Necromancy. Neither one inherently good or bad. I think we can do away with the notion of inherent good and evil and instead look at these approaches as able to justify themselves in their own ways. Because each one considers the other to be foolish and/or dangerous is simply a product of their differing philosophies.
One seeks to reach an equilibrium with the other side of life, to put to rest any misgivings or misinterpretations about what it means to pass over, to join the choir invisible, or otherwise shuffle off this mortal coil. If one were to D&D-ify this approach, a place to start might be the dubious profession of the medium. One who channels the spirits of the dead in an empathetic and mutual way, seeking to communicate and to understand rather than to dominate. Perhaps this approach seeks the dissolution of the barriers that separate life and death. How can one die in the traditional sense if the boundaries are so blurred? Perhaps this path is about seeking a way to live forever, or to radically change the structure of the world so that death no longer means such and abrupt and definite end to life.
The other is about control and harnessing the potential of the well of souls to which we all go when we die. There's a lot of gravity in that well. It is heavy with the weight of the dead. It's about tapping the power of the billions of souls that have lived and died, for the benefit of those that live. Its about preserving the order of the world. Embracing the ephemeral nature of life and holding the structure of the universe bound in an iron grip to keep it turning, keep it working as it should. The fabric of life and death are such that each cannot exist without the other. If death is rendered meaningless, if the wold is tampered with on such a fundamental level, it is impossible to determine whether life can still exist.
I think I shall compile some more ideas and create some non-competitive D&D classes based around these ideas. Thanks for reading, if indeed you did.
No comments:
Post a Comment