The Stick's worst blunder: vote now!

[Peelee]

Given what we know about vampires, there's no reason to believe that other intelligent undead work differently.

Have you met Xykon?

[Jasdoif]

Given what we know about vampires, there's no reason to believe that other intelligent undead work differently.

As it turns out, there is such a reason:

Nothing that happens with vampires in this comic can be extrapolated to work similarly with other undead. All types of undead work differently, that's why they are different types in the first place. Xykon is still Xykon.

[Kurald Galain]

(except for Tsukiko. Unnatural wizardry seems kinda stupid law - but the story was good nevertheless)

"Unnatural wizardry" is probably a euhpemism for "animating undead for the purpose of having sex with them"... there's all kinds of laws against that, and all kinds of reasons why you wouldn't trust someone like that on your side.

[Keltest]

Given what we know about vampires, there's no reason to believe that other intelligent undead work differently. Creating intelligent undead that kidnap the souls of their host and emotionally torture them for all of their existence seems something that a paladin nation very well should outlaw.

Xykon seems to still retain his original soul, such as it was.

[Ruck]

Easy. Be conquered by a people that does not have paladins.

Oh, wait ...

Well, the Sapphire Guard doesn't really exist anymore without Soon's Gate, so it's kind of a moot point.

[Lacuna Caster]

Well, it's pretty obvious where my vote is going, but to be fair, the Order have also had some very accommodating villains.

[Mightymosy]

Given what we know about vampires, there's no reason to believe that other intelligent undead work differently. Creating intelligent undead that kidnap the souls of their host and emotionally torture them for all of their existence seems something that a paladin nation very well should outlaw.

Yeah, then charge her for "soul-torturing" or "evil magic", if you want. But unnatural? Cure for cancer averts the "natural order of the disease", you want to outlaw that as well? Banning something for being "unnatural" is just so...ugh.

[Mightymosy]

"Unnatural wizardry" is probably a euhpemism for "animating undead for the purpose of having sex with them"... there's all kinds of laws against that, and all kinds of reasons why you wouldn't trust someone like that on your side.

Really? It doesn't sound like that at all. Is there any comic that points to that being the case? I mean it could be, but I never got that impression from reading the strips.

[Hamste]

I think her unnatural wizardry was from her animating dead (not sure what else she would have done to be charged with it) but I doubt she was having sex with them. She seemed to treat her creations as children not as sexual partners.

[Emanick]

Yeah, then charge her for "soul-torturing" or "evil magic", if you want. But unnatural? Cure for cancer averts the "natural order of the disease", you want to outlaw that as well? Banning something for being "unnatural" is just so...ugh.

I doubt Tsukiko was imprisoned simply because the Azurites have an aesthetic distaste to the kind of magic she performs. It goes without saying that Azure City probably doesn't object to things merely because they're "unnatural" - after all, as you point out, curing wounds or disease falls under that category, yet the city pretty clearly has clerics who are free to cast their spells as they please.

No, I expect that Azure City considers either necromancy or a specific kind of necromancy to be "unnatural" in a societally damaging way, possibly because that kind of magic is strongly correlated with Evil magic, and the state obviously has a strong interest in preventing Evil spellcasters from getting to the point where they pose a threat to society. Remember that the name of a crime often has very little to do with why the crime is, well, a crime.

Or maybe they just find necromancy gross. But since there are real and legitimate reasons to legislate against particularly kinds of necromantic magic, I'm guessing the government noticed that fact and acted accordingly.

[yldenfrei]

I think her unnatural wizardry was from her animating dead (not sure what else she would have done to be charged with it) but I doubt she was having sex with them. She seemed to treat her creations as children not as sexual partners.

Even with the winking?

OTOH, Hinjo's mention of "Unnatural Acts of Wizardry" sounded fairly straightforward, which may simply mean Necromancy (which, as Emanick above pointed out, is stereotypically Evil) instead of Tsukiko's sexual preference.

[hamishspence]

Even with the winking?

There's also this:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0700.html

[Hamste]

Even with the winking?

OTOH, Hinjo's mention of "Unnatural Acts of Wizardry" sounded fairly straightforward, which may simply mean Necromancy (which, as Emanick above pointed out, is stereotypically Evil) instead of Tsukiko's sexual preference.

Xykon is not her creation. She loves undead but that doesn't mean she had sex with her creations and how she treats them suggests she views them as children.

In 830 she literally refers to herself as mommy when asking the wights to stop (513 she acts over protective of them and 516 she calls one "my little one" which suggests this wasn't just because she was addled from all the negative energy drain). She might not view all her creations like her children but nothing I know of suggests she would treat any of her other undead creations differently.

[Peelee]

Yeah, then charge her for "soul-torturing" or "evil magic", if you want. But unnatural? Cure for cancer averts the "natural order of the disease", you want to outlaw that as well? Banning something for being "unnatural" is just so...ugh.

Do you similarly think the real-life charge of "criminal mischief" should be renamed, because if it is already criminal, then it is already illegal?

"Unnatural wizardry" is probably a generic term for a host of acts. So they used "unnatural" instead of "criminal" or "felony." Unless you know what all it covers, it seems a bit difficult to rally against it being misnamed.

[Lacuna Caster]

Yeah, then charge her for "soul-torturing" or "evil magic", if you want. But unnatural? Cure for cancer averts the "natural order of the disease", you want to outlaw that as well? Banning something for being "unnatural" is just so...ugh.

I'm not sure what's actually being discussed here. Are you getting hung up over legal terminology, or do you think this signifies some kind of specific ethical blind spot in Azurean culture?

I do think there are certain forms of undeath where it's not obvious that what's happening is concretely evil, per se. All living things beside plants consume other life to survive, so being, for example, a Lich is arguably a less inherently destructive mode of existence, and can retain valuable skills and experience from key individuals. Zombies are essentially just dead tissue doing physical work, which is no more or less problematic than, say, donating your body for science, and far less problematic than killing the person to begin with. One could go on.

These arguments never really get articulated, because Tsukiko is a vacuous power-junkie with a limited grasp of reality, though in principle they could be made. I just have no difficulty imagining that Tsukiko did any number of other appalling things to see her in the clink.

[Kish]

I agree that "unnatural" is a meaningless word and the crime amounts to "Acts of Wizardry We Don't Like," but it's to be expected. Azure City is a city with all the stereotypical narrow-mindedness authors often associate with "Lawful," and paladins in OotS have sticks up their asses as a class feature. It is pretty clear that Tsukiko belonged, if not in prison, then in a mental institution with good enough security that she couldn't hurt the other inmates.

[Spellbreaker26]

Tsukiko mentions a incident with a crypt-thing that was female* when the MitD asks her if she "does both". I suspect that she does indeed use her creations for that sort of purpose, to put it lightly.

Not to mention the reason that Necromancy is almost always evil is because it's hard to get consent from the family of the deceased to use a body like that. Desecration of graves and corpses is already a serious enough offense without adding "making them into magical puppets" to the rap sheet. This isn't the paladins being prejudiced against a different religion or a particular branch of magic; necromancy is a very difficult, nigh impossible field to study legitimately.

*Source: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0700.html

[Hamste]

Why do you think Tsukiko made a crypt thing? It is extremely weak for her to create and makes no sense as something she would create purely for a partner. It also clashes with how she treats the other undead she creates. More likely she found the crypt thing while she was doing what ever it was she did to get at least 14 levels (possibly because she was looking through crypts for undead to animate considering crypt things are guards for crypts if I remember right).

[Spellbreaker26]

Why do you think Tsukiko made a crypt thing? It is extremely weak for her to create and makes no sense as something she would create purely for a partner. It also clashes with how she treats the other undead she creates.

I don't know what level crypt things are; perhaps if she did create it it was an early experiment, but it is possible that it was not one of hers.

In any case, we don't have Tsukiko's details on her personal treatment of her undead aside from making sure that they have a buddy system and that she sees them as living things. It could go either way, and honestly I don't see the point in speculating. Regular old necromancers are bad enough whether they use their creations for personal indulgence or not.

[Kurald Galain]

Why do you think Tsukiko made a crypt thing? It is extremely weak for her to create and makes no sense as something she would create purely for a partner.

Why not? Crypt things have good dexterity and charisma, can teleport into exciting locations, and know exactly what you like due to a sense motive score that's through the roof.

[Keltest]

I'm sorry, have we actually descended into speculating on the sexual prowess of various undead now?

[littlebum2002]

I mean, it's a pretty common trope for Lawful Good societies to ban all types of necromancy. There's a reason why Animate Dead is [evil] even though it only creates mindless undead, because necromancy is almost always considered "evil" and "unnatural".

So I think it's safe to say that any necromancy in Azure City would probably be illegal. "Unnatural acts of wizardry" is just legalese for "necromancy".

[Lacuna Caster]

Not to mention the reason that Necromancy is almost always evil is because it's hard to get consent from the family of the deceased to use a body like that. Desecration of graves and corpses is already a serious enough offense without adding "making them into magical puppets" to the rap sheet. This isn't the paladins being prejudiced against a different religion or a particular branch of magic; necromancy is a very difficult, nigh impossible field to study legitimately.

Yes, except that this isn't a universe where you get more skilled by studying things. You mostly get more skilled by going out and impaling monsters on pieces of sharp metal, then imbibing their sweet, sweet life essence XP. Using ennervation, wail of the banshee or create undead for the purpose is really just a different flavour of frosting on the cake.

I don't think it's even the flavour of magic that's the problem, since the ghost-martyrs are, well, essentially undead. (I know there's the usual positive/negative energy gibberish in the way, but that's like arguing over AC/DC electrical current as if it were an ethics question.)

[Keltest]

Yes, except that this isn't a universe where you get more skilled by studying things. You mostly get more skilled by going out and impaling monsters on pieces of sharp metal, then imbibing their sweet, sweet life essence XP. Using ennervation, wail of the banshee or create undead for the purpose is really just a different flavour of frosting on the cake.

I don't think it's even the flavour of magic that's the problem, since the ghost-martyrs are, well, essentially undead. (I know there's the usual positive/negative energy gibberish in the way, but that's like arguing over AC/DC electrical current as if it were an ethics question.)

Actually if youre a wizard, you do have to study spells to learn them. While it isn't said word for word, the Giant heavily implied that Tsukiko was a necromancer wizard, and that he accidentally broke the rules making her.

[Peelee]

I mean, it's a pretty common trope for Lawful Good societies to ban all types of necromancy. There's a reason why Animate Dead is [evil] even though it only creates mindless undead, because necromancy is almost always considered "evil" and "unnatural".

So I think it's safe to say that any necromancy in Azure City would probably be illegal. "Unnatural acts of wizardry" is just legalese for "necromancy".

I dunno about all necromancy. The Mark of Justice is necromancy, and Hinjo didn't seem it imply it was flat-out illegal, just it wasn't part of the the Azure City legal system, and he wasn't under any legal obligation to remove it. Now, there's absolutely some wiggle room here, but I'd imagine that if it was a fully illegal act, then Hinjo would be obligated to remove it, since it was done under the authority of the head of Azure City acting above the law.

[Snails]

I do think there are certain forms of undeath where it's not obvious that what's happening is concretely evil, per se. All living things beside plants consume other life to survive, so being, for example, a Lich is arguably a less inherently destructive mode of existence, and can retain valuable skills and experience from key individuals. Zombies are essentially just dead tissue doing physical work, which is no more or less problematic than, say, donating your body for science, and far less problematic than killing the person to begin with. One could go on.

It would make a perfectly reasonable houserule that undeath is not automatically evil. However making undeath evil in the core rules was a purposeful design decision that was far less arbitrary you seem to imply.

Basically the designers are baking "flavor" into the rules system, because a very flavorless system would fail to spark the imagination. That is why paladins are LG, monks are Lawful, bards are non-Lawful, demons are evil, dragons you are likely to meet are evil, goblins are usually evil, etc. It is very easy to imagine a campaign world where any or all of these standards are untrue, but the default core system must start somewhere that is understandable to new players who are more likely to know common stories/mythologies than RPG tropes.

That disrespect for a human corpse can disrupt the soul's journey to its proper place is a ubiquitous bit of mythology. So much so that some cultures specifically mess with the corpse of their fallen enemies, while other cultures think that only a complete idiot dares provoke the wrath of a unrestful spirit.

When you remove this taboo against violating corpses away, you have sucked the marrow out of mythology of undeath and created a dry technology. Now, a dry technology can be a great springboard towards telling great stories but it is a terrible default choice for a fantasy RPG.

[Snails]

Yes, except that this isn't a universe where you get more skilled by studying things. You mostly get more skilled by going out and impaling monsters on pieces of sharp metal, then imbibing their sweet, sweet life essence XP. Using ennervation, wail of the banshee or create undead for the purpose is really just a different flavour of frosting on the cake.

Careful. In the larger universe the story takes place, it may be normal to get more skilled by studying things. It so happens to be an impractical for adventurous PCs, so we have no core rules to cover it. The fact that the core rules do not exist does not prove anything about how NPC work -- hat is why Crystal's assertion that she magically levels to be an appropriate nemesis for Haley is so funny.

If I were running a campaign, I would have no problem with PCs studying to improve. But that is something that I would handwave and tune to what serves the fun of the game, not something we would play out at a table. For example, imagine a Player wants to stop playing his 10th level wizard and run a ranger instead. What happens to the wizard? He goes somewhere to study something I suppose -- whether he gain XP is pretty irrelevant right now. Now suppose that the same Player later decides he does not want to play his 12th level ranger anymore and was wondering whether he could bring back his wizard. I would make the wizard 12th level and give him a token magic items so he is not falling far behind the other PCs -- the decision here is to handwave such that everyone is most likely to have fun. Saying "sorry, but your 10th level wizard is 10th level and he has falling so far behind the rest of the party that he sucks" is not helping anyone (although it might make perfect sense in some campaigns).

[Snails]

I dunno about all necromancy.

D&D has been pretty highly inconsistent about where to draw the lines, both is what is necromancy and whether necromancy itself is morally suspect. Weren't healing spells necromancy at one point? It has been consistent specifically about undeath.

In the post-1e world the designers want named "schools" that are large enough to be somewhat comparable to each other. Necromancy has always fallen short, and whether it is worth doing something about it get re-examined every edition.

[Kurald Galain]

I dunno about all necromancy. The Mark of Justice is necromancy

And this is why the ban is on "unnatural acts of wizardry" which presumably includes anything related to animating undead. That academically-inclined wizards have some thaumic theory that groups all spells into eight "schools" is not something most nobles or paladins would know (or care) about.

[Peelee]

D&D has been pretty highly inconsistent about where to draw the lines, both is what is necromancy and whether necromancy itself is morally suspect. Weren't healing spells necromancy at one point? It has been consistent specifically about undeath.

In the post-1e world the designers want named "schools" that are large enough to be somewhat comparable to each other. Necromancy has always fallen short, and whether it is worth doing something about it get re-examined every edition.

Yep. Since it's OotS-based discussion, though, I'm just focusing on the 3.5 ruleset.

And this is why the ban is on "unnatural acts of wizardry" which presumably includes anything related to animating undead. That academically-inclined wizards have some thaumic theory that groups all spells into eight "schools" is not something most nobles or paladins would know (or care) about.

Excactly. "Unnatural acts of Wizardy" is clearly a catch-all for a number of specific spells or effects.