Is it wrong to bane necromancy?
- Thread starter James Trotta
- Start date
Misses it's intended target and hits what exac'ly? A table does nye rot when hit wit' a cause wounds spell. A ward cast upon a tree will still allow any creature dhat wishes to scurry wit'in or atop her. Probably dhe energy jus' goes back to dhe Eart' or dhe Sky from whence it was drawn to be used again. I for one do nye believe dhat any new magic is created nor destroyed. I were taught in school dhat no matter ever is created or destroyed, merely changes shape and is reused by dhe natural cycle of Fortannis...mayhap dhis eez dhe case wit' magics.
Alavatar
Baron
I still advocate that Bane is similar to Reflect Magic. It is a smart defense that is capable of reflecting an effect of a specific school of magic, nothing more. You do not need to attune the magic of the Bane, nor do you even have to have knowledge of Earth magic in order to create a Bane or Cloak Necromancy. The effect is a protective that functions along the same line as any other spell in the Protection/Enchantment school.
Cloak and Bane are merely advanced forms of Spell Shield and Reflect Magic, an evolution from basic magic to Formal magic.
However, as was noted earlier, many creatures that use Necromantic effects are commonly healed by Necromancy so it would be more prudent to have a Cloak Necromancy if the option exists.
Regards,
Alavatar Peece
Red Wizard of the Crossroads
Cloak and Bane are merely advanced forms of Spell Shield and Reflect Magic, an evolution from basic magic to Formal magic.
However, as was noted earlier, many creatures that use Necromantic effects are commonly healed by Necromancy so it would be more prudent to have a Cloak Necromancy if the option exists.
Regards,
Alavatar Peece
Red Wizard of the Crossroads
AllianceCHI
Baron
Ah agree with Master Peece,
he's a renowned formalist from Andar. I would also put mah stamp on his words exactly.
Jehan Wyldweaver
he's a renowned formalist from Andar. I would also put mah stamp on his words exactly.
Jehan Wyldweaver
Red Wizard Peece, Squire Jehan - If the crux of your argument is that someone who uses a Bane charm does not need to understand Chaos or Necromancy and, therefore, isn't at fault when they benefit from Chaos magics, then why not use Chaos charms? That is, are you saying a person who can't cast Earth magics should be able to activate a charm which casts "Cause Wounds" and not be at fault?
Or, is it that the charm is a protective and therefore, the user is not at fault. Which would make me wonder if it's alright to cast Chaos as long as you are protecting yourself and others?
Master Dramthin Hartsboon
Simple Keeper of the Tainted Grove
Or, is it that the charm is a protective and therefore, the user is not at fault. Which would make me wonder if it's alright to cast Chaos as long as you are protecting yourself and others?
Master Dramthin Hartsboon
Simple Keeper of the Tainted Grove
Dramt'in! You know very well dhat dhat eez nye dhe message dhat Alavatar were trying to convey!
You 'ave gone beyond merely being scholarly and are now being outright condescending, I t'ink. Dhese t'ings have already been said. At dhis point we are jus' rearranging words on dhe subject.
You 'ave gone beyond merely being scholarly and are now being outright condescending, I t'ink. Dhese t'ings have already been said. At dhis point we are jus' rearranging words on dhe subject.
It seems to me, there has been a wealth of speech regarding the relative use of a Bane charm in combat, but very little regarding whether such a weapon should be used. I have seen very little conversation on the nature of the magics at hand, most of this has been a discussion on whether one can rationalize the use of what truly appears to be a dangerous tool.
There is no doubt that the Bane charm effectively hurts a chaotician as they are afflicted by their own Chaos spells. However, no one has disputed the fact that the person who uses a Bane Chaos charm is using Chaos to hurt people. Regardless of the method, the person who uses such a tool is, in effect, casting Chaos spells.
A moral system should be based on the underlying logic and principle, and not what is useful or expedient at the moment. However, it is astonishing to me that people who viciously attacked men like Arkade Prince for merely asking about Chaos are silent when it comes to what amounts to a loophole in the philosophy. Red Wizard Peece and Squire Jehan are, of course, not these people, but they seem to be arguing for their position and so I'm asking them.
Marce, though you are right to speak to the tenor of this discourse, but I don't see any flaw with the questions I posed. They are a direct result of the logic at hand, and if they make people uncomfortable, perhaps they should look to their precepts.
Master Dramthin Hartsboon
Simple Keeper of the Tainted Grove
There is no doubt that the Bane charm effectively hurts a chaotician as they are afflicted by their own Chaos spells. However, no one has disputed the fact that the person who uses a Bane Chaos charm is using Chaos to hurt people. Regardless of the method, the person who uses such a tool is, in effect, casting Chaos spells.
A moral system should be based on the underlying logic and principle, and not what is useful or expedient at the moment. However, it is astonishing to me that people who viciously attacked men like Arkade Prince for merely asking about Chaos are silent when it comes to what amounts to a loophole in the philosophy. Red Wizard Peece and Squire Jehan are, of course, not these people, but they seem to be arguing for their position and so I'm asking them.
Marce, though you are right to speak to the tenor of this discourse, but I don't see any flaw with the questions I posed. They are a direct result of the logic at hand, and if they make people uncomfortable, perhaps they should look to their precepts.
Master Dramthin Hartsboon
Simple Keeper of the Tainted Grove
Alavatar
Baron
Master Hartsboon,
The foundation of my argument is that the magic used to create a Bane ritual effect does not contain Necromancy, nor does the execution of a Bane Necromancy use Chaos in any way to recipricate the magic. Bane does not create a new spell, nor does it use the spells magical energy to emulate the effect; it just bounces the specified school of magic back at the original caster. Just the same as a Reflect Magic does not recreate or emulate a spell.
Bane and Cloak are merely evolved versions of Reflect Magic and Spell Shield (and Poison Shield and Elemental Shield in a way). The primary difference in functionality, aside from choosing to use a Bane or Cloak, is that the Battle Cast spells (Spell Shield and Reflect Magic) only work against any Magic effects, but not Arcane, Elemental, Physical, etc delivered effects yet Bane and Cloak are designed to effect a specified school of effect regardless of delivery.
Now, using a magic item with an imbued spell in it does recreate the effect because it does require the desired spell to be cast at the same time as imbuing the object. The Enchant or Expanded Enchant essentially makes the magical item a conduit that allows the owner of the item to cast the spell without actually knowing how to cast it. If that happens to be a Necromantic spell, then the item is recreating a Necromantic spell each time it is used. This is completely different from a Bane or Cloak which does not recreate, emulate, or reconfigure the original spell; instead the spell is redirected.
That is why I believe it is completely within the bounds of common ethics to have a Bane Necromancy. But, pragmatically, I would advocate a Cloak Necromancy if the choice is available for reasons previously covered, notably that if you are fighting undead the Bane would heal your opponent rather then harm them.
Does that help?
Regards,
Alavatar Peece
Red Wizard of the Crossroads
The foundation of my argument is that the magic used to create a Bane ritual effect does not contain Necromancy, nor does the execution of a Bane Necromancy use Chaos in any way to recipricate the magic. Bane does not create a new spell, nor does it use the spells magical energy to emulate the effect; it just bounces the specified school of magic back at the original caster. Just the same as a Reflect Magic does not recreate or emulate a spell.
Bane and Cloak are merely evolved versions of Reflect Magic and Spell Shield (and Poison Shield and Elemental Shield in a way). The primary difference in functionality, aside from choosing to use a Bane or Cloak, is that the Battle Cast spells (Spell Shield and Reflect Magic) only work against any Magic effects, but not Arcane, Elemental, Physical, etc delivered effects yet Bane and Cloak are designed to effect a specified school of effect regardless of delivery.
Now, using a magic item with an imbued spell in it does recreate the effect because it does require the desired spell to be cast at the same time as imbuing the object. The Enchant or Expanded Enchant essentially makes the magical item a conduit that allows the owner of the item to cast the spell without actually knowing how to cast it. If that happens to be a Necromantic spell, then the item is recreating a Necromantic spell each time it is used. This is completely different from a Bane or Cloak which does not recreate, emulate, or reconfigure the original spell; instead the spell is redirected.
That is why I believe it is completely within the bounds of common ethics to have a Bane Necromancy. But, pragmatically, I would advocate a Cloak Necromancy if the choice is available for reasons previously covered, notably that if you are fighting undead the Bane would heal your opponent rather then harm them.
Does that help?
Regards,
Alavatar Peece
Red Wizard of the Crossroads
I think there are two lines of thought running parallel in this conversation and we need to separate them. First, the meta-magical conversation: we are debating whether or not the Bane Ritual creates magical energy at the point of contact. This, I think, we could debate ad nauseam and not see through to a conclusion. In response to your "Bounce" hypothesis, one could just as easily posit that the original spell is absorbed into the charm and then instantly "recast" at the original target. As "targeted" spells like Bind and Dominate actually change 'owner', one could make an argument that the original spell has been destroyed and a new spell created. The "Recreate" hypothesis fits just as many of the facts and accounts for more of the exceptions. However, as neither of us are Celestines, I don't think we can have a deep insight into the very nature of magics, formal or otherwise.
More to the point, though I would love to discuss the technical aspects of magic with you, a discussion of theory does not respond to Littlebeard's original question. He was wondering if the Bane charm spreads Chaos' corruption to the Earth. This, I think, is much sturdier ground for discussion as it relates to contemplation of mortal motivations and actions, and not Eldritch or Fortannian energies.
First, I will look to your point that a Bane charm is just an extended and modified form of the Reflect Magic spell. Let us look at its reflecting nature: with a Reflect spell, one cannot choose which spell is affected or when - it is a flat "protective". As such, whether the chaotician casts a Chaos spell or a binding spell, the user is equally protected in the instant. However, what would happen if one could choose to delay or even deny the release of energy?
Does this change the nature of the situation? In both cases the operator of the Reflect Magic does not cast the spell, but in the 'delay/deny' scenario they are an active participant in the release of the subsequent energy. They must decide when, or even IF, they should release magics back at the caster, instead of relying on the charm's effect. This, I think, would greatly alter what people feel about the charm - I think it would make them hesitate to use it, just as they are hesitate to use Chaotic Extend Enchantment charms.
So, while we are perfectly comfortable allowing an inert piece of tin reflect a Chaotic spell at its caster, we might be somewhat less sanguine choosing to unleash that same spell ourselves at a later time. Why is this? I would posit, it's because, the “reflect relationship” doesn't dirty our hands - we can merely say, "My charm worked as it should, I had nothing to do with it." While in the 'delay/deny' scenario we must actively choose to release Chaotic energy and thusly feel guilty about using such methods. In the 'deny/delay' situation, we cannot hide behind the charm as operator and must take responsibility.
This is where I see the main problem. The idea that Bane charms somehow sterilize the use of Chaos magics is false. As soon as one decides to wear and use a Bane charm or accept a Reflect Magic spell, one is taking a personal responsibility for the release of that energy. Both spell and charm are designed to unleash dangerous energies. The acceptance of the item or spell is a direct line of causation to the damage it will cause later. If I prick a person with a poisoned dagger and they die, I cannot hide behind the fact that I didn't know it was coated - I am still responsible for their death. By using the dagger, I am taking full responsibility for any outcome of its use, just as when I use a Bane charm or a Reflect Magic spell, I must take full responsibility for the outcome.
In the end, both Bane charms and Reflect Magic spells are not defensive bulwarks, they are offensive weapons. These tools are designed to attack the enemy; they are spears, not shields. Thinking of them as a defense is misguided.
One can make an even more specific argument against the Bane Chaos charm based upon your very valid insight that Cloak and Bane charms are "type specific". As such, when I accept a Bane Chaos charm I am accepting the fact that the only spell I can ever affect will be Chaotic in nature. That is, I am saying, "The only reason for this weapon's existence is to redirect a Chaotic effect, I am intending to use Chaos to hurt someone." By seeking a charm specifically designed for Chaos, I am creating a future scenario where I will be using Chaos to attack my enemy. I want my enemy to cast their nastiest, most vicious Chaos spell at me, that I might use it against them. I am snatching the poisoned dagger from their hand and stabbing them with it. The larger their Chaos spell, the more potential I have to benefit.
Which, returns to my earlier question, is it ever right to benefit from Chaos magic?
Master Dramthin Hartsboon
Simple Keeper of the Tainted Grove
More to the point, though I would love to discuss the technical aspects of magic with you, a discussion of theory does not respond to Littlebeard's original question. He was wondering if the Bane charm spreads Chaos' corruption to the Earth. This, I think, is much sturdier ground for discussion as it relates to contemplation of mortal motivations and actions, and not Eldritch or Fortannian energies.
First, I will look to your point that a Bane charm is just an extended and modified form of the Reflect Magic spell. Let us look at its reflecting nature: with a Reflect spell, one cannot choose which spell is affected or when - it is a flat "protective". As such, whether the chaotician casts a Chaos spell or a binding spell, the user is equally protected in the instant. However, what would happen if one could choose to delay or even deny the release of energy?
Does this change the nature of the situation? In both cases the operator of the Reflect Magic does not cast the spell, but in the 'delay/deny' scenario they are an active participant in the release of the subsequent energy. They must decide when, or even IF, they should release magics back at the caster, instead of relying on the charm's effect. This, I think, would greatly alter what people feel about the charm - I think it would make them hesitate to use it, just as they are hesitate to use Chaotic Extend Enchantment charms.
So, while we are perfectly comfortable allowing an inert piece of tin reflect a Chaotic spell at its caster, we might be somewhat less sanguine choosing to unleash that same spell ourselves at a later time. Why is this? I would posit, it's because, the “reflect relationship” doesn't dirty our hands - we can merely say, "My charm worked as it should, I had nothing to do with it." While in the 'delay/deny' scenario we must actively choose to release Chaotic energy and thusly feel guilty about using such methods. In the 'deny/delay' situation, we cannot hide behind the charm as operator and must take responsibility.
This is where I see the main problem. The idea that Bane charms somehow sterilize the use of Chaos magics is false. As soon as one decides to wear and use a Bane charm or accept a Reflect Magic spell, one is taking a personal responsibility for the release of that energy. Both spell and charm are designed to unleash dangerous energies. The acceptance of the item or spell is a direct line of causation to the damage it will cause later. If I prick a person with a poisoned dagger and they die, I cannot hide behind the fact that I didn't know it was coated - I am still responsible for their death. By using the dagger, I am taking full responsibility for any outcome of its use, just as when I use a Bane charm or a Reflect Magic spell, I must take full responsibility for the outcome.
In the end, both Bane charms and Reflect Magic spells are not defensive bulwarks, they are offensive weapons. These tools are designed to attack the enemy; they are spears, not shields. Thinking of them as a defense is misguided.
One can make an even more specific argument against the Bane Chaos charm based upon your very valid insight that Cloak and Bane charms are "type specific". As such, when I accept a Bane Chaos charm I am accepting the fact that the only spell I can ever affect will be Chaotic in nature. That is, I am saying, "The only reason for this weapon's existence is to redirect a Chaotic effect, I am intending to use Chaos to hurt someone." By seeking a charm specifically designed for Chaos, I am creating a future scenario where I will be using Chaos to attack my enemy. I want my enemy to cast their nastiest, most vicious Chaos spell at me, that I might use it against them. I am snatching the poisoned dagger from their hand and stabbing them with it. The larger their Chaos spell, the more potential I have to benefit.
Which, returns to my earlier question, is it ever right to benefit from Chaos magic?
Master Dramthin Hartsboon
Simple Keeper of the Tainted Grove
Alavatar
Baron
((OOG: I am quoting because it makes it easier to address a paragraph or few at a time then trying to write a paper that argues against another paper. 
))
Actually, the message I received from Mr. Littlebeard's inquiry was that he had come to a moral conclusion and wondered if anyone else felt the same. My conclusion is that since no more Necromancy enters the system when using a Bane Necromancy it does not further corrupt the Earth.
You are correct that there are two lines of thought, but I believe that one line of thought cannot exist without the other. For instance, in my studies I have found that using Bane Necromancy creates as much Chaos energy as dodging the spell would. Whether the spell hits grass or is redirected back at the caster has no difference on the amount of Necromantic energy in the cycle. The only energy expended is that of the protective magic, be it Cloak, Bane, Reflect Magic, Spell Shield, Elemental Shield, etc.
While I understand your analogy of Binding magic as evidence concerning a spell being recreated by the protective Bane or Reflect Magic, I must respectfully disagree. In order for those charms to be able to recreate the spell they would need to access the appropriate energy; the thrown spell is only part of the equation, the second part is back at the original caster. So, instead, Reflect Magic and Bane are designed to transfer ownership of the spells they bounce back. Just as the effect is redirected so to is the ownership of the spell. Of course, this is only relavent in cases where ownership affects the spells effect such as Binding magic, Dominate, and Prison.
It sounds like you are coming to the conclusion that using Reflect Magic against Necromancy is morally acceptable since it protects against all Magic and is used whether you want to or not?
I am not sure what you mean by "deny/delay". Deny is essentially a Cloak. And if by "delay" you mean "absorb" the spell then you are talking about a Spell Store enchantment. Spell Store is a Ritual that allows you to absorb spells to cast again at a later time, but is aspect driven. For instance, you cannot put a Cure Light Wounds into a Celestial Spell Store. However, I do not know if an Earth Spell Store can hold a Necromancy spell. I must perform some research on this.
Anyway, since the Spell Store is attuned to a particular aspect upon casting it contains a connection to the origin of that particular aspect, so to speak. As such, when you absorb a spell into a Spell Store you are absorbing a majority of the magic from the spell and the rest of the necessary magic to fuel the later casting is acquired via the Spell Store enchantment. Thus, a portion of the spell is recreated.
Hold on, now. I never claimed, nor did anyone else in this discussion, that Bane "sterilizes" the Necromancy it reflects.
Reflect and Bane do not unleash dangerous energy, they redirect it. No more Magic enters the system. The only energy used is the spell or effect energy and the energy from the Bane or Reflect, which is energy from the Protective/Enchantment school.
As far as accepting the consequences of having such protectives I agree with you, to a point. I agree in so far as someone with a weapon must be responsible for the weapon's use, or a person casting a Dragon's Breath is responsible for the outcome, or a person with a Life/Death spell is responsible for either using it on a companion (Life) or on a foe (Death). It is completely dependant on how you use it.
And, to be honest, I find offense in your statement that thinking of Reflect Magic and Bane as a defense is misguided. They are defensive enchantments that also have an offensive aspect. They are more akin to a spiked shield in that they protect you from an effect which is retaliated back.
If someone is indeed malicious and acquires Bane specifically for that purpose, then I can see your point. But, that person is not casting Necromancy, nor are they directly condoning Necromancy. My guess is that someone that has a bunch of Bane Necromancy is most likely a hunter of Necromancers because Bane Necromancy is not terribly efficient against Undead. Also, in some cases it is better to have a Bane Necromancy then nothing at all specifically for it's shielding ability.
Most tactical combatants I meet that want Bane in lieu of Cloak is so their opponent is susceptable to their own negative effect. Whether that Bane is for Necromancy, Command, Curse, Alteration, etc. is irrelavent because most of the time the first of the specified effect group or school that gets through all other protectives will most likely be Baned. These combatants would often choose Cloak Necromancy, though, because it is better to not risk potentially healing an Undead opponent or possibly Reverse Lifeforced Necromancer.
Regards,
Alavatar Peece
Red Wizard of the Crossroads
P.S. I believe you meant to say Chaotic Expanded Enchantment charms.
P.P.S. I am not familiar with the term "Celestine". Could you define that for me, please?
))Mobius said:
Actually, the message I received from Mr. Littlebeard's inquiry was that he had come to a moral conclusion and wondered if anyone else felt the same. My conclusion is that since no more Necromancy enters the system when using a Bane Necromancy it does not further corrupt the Earth.
You are correct that there are two lines of thought, but I believe that one line of thought cannot exist without the other. For instance, in my studies I have found that using Bane Necromancy creates as much Chaos energy as dodging the spell would. Whether the spell hits grass or is redirected back at the caster has no difference on the amount of Necromantic energy in the cycle. The only energy expended is that of the protective magic, be it Cloak, Bane, Reflect Magic, Spell Shield, Elemental Shield, etc.
While I understand your analogy of Binding magic as evidence concerning a spell being recreated by the protective Bane or Reflect Magic, I must respectfully disagree. In order for those charms to be able to recreate the spell they would need to access the appropriate energy; the thrown spell is only part of the equation, the second part is back at the original caster. So, instead, Reflect Magic and Bane are designed to transfer ownership of the spells they bounce back. Just as the effect is redirected so to is the ownership of the spell. Of course, this is only relavent in cases where ownership affects the spells effect such as Binding magic, Dominate, and Prison.
Mobius said:
It sounds like you are coming to the conclusion that using Reflect Magic against Necromancy is morally acceptable since it protects against all Magic and is used whether you want to or not?
I am not sure what you mean by "deny/delay". Deny is essentially a Cloak. And if by "delay" you mean "absorb" the spell then you are talking about a Spell Store enchantment. Spell Store is a Ritual that allows you to absorb spells to cast again at a later time, but is aspect driven. For instance, you cannot put a Cure Light Wounds into a Celestial Spell Store. However, I do not know if an Earth Spell Store can hold a Necromancy spell. I must perform some research on this.
Anyway, since the Spell Store is attuned to a particular aspect upon casting it contains a connection to the origin of that particular aspect, so to speak. As such, when you absorb a spell into a Spell Store you are absorbing a majority of the magic from the spell and the rest of the necessary magic to fuel the later casting is acquired via the Spell Store enchantment. Thus, a portion of the spell is recreated.
Mobius said:
Hold on, now. I never claimed, nor did anyone else in this discussion, that Bane "sterilizes" the Necromancy it reflects.
Reflect and Bane do not unleash dangerous energy, they redirect it. No more Magic enters the system. The only energy used is the spell or effect energy and the energy from the Bane or Reflect, which is energy from the Protective/Enchantment school.
As far as accepting the consequences of having such protectives I agree with you, to a point. I agree in so far as someone with a weapon must be responsible for the weapon's use, or a person casting a Dragon's Breath is responsible for the outcome, or a person with a Life/Death spell is responsible for either using it on a companion (Life) or on a foe (Death). It is completely dependant on how you use it.
And, to be honest, I find offense in your statement that thinking of Reflect Magic and Bane as a defense is misguided. They are defensive enchantments that also have an offensive aspect. They are more akin to a spiked shield in that they protect you from an effect which is retaliated back.
Mobius said:
If someone is indeed malicious and acquires Bane specifically for that purpose, then I can see your point. But, that person is not casting Necromancy, nor are they directly condoning Necromancy. My guess is that someone that has a bunch of Bane Necromancy is most likely a hunter of Necromancers because Bane Necromancy is not terribly efficient against Undead. Also, in some cases it is better to have a Bane Necromancy then nothing at all specifically for it's shielding ability.
Most tactical combatants I meet that want Bane in lieu of Cloak is so their opponent is susceptable to their own negative effect. Whether that Bane is for Necromancy, Command, Curse, Alteration, etc. is irrelavent because most of the time the first of the specified effect group or school that gets through all other protectives will most likely be Baned. These combatants would often choose Cloak Necromancy, though, because it is better to not risk potentially healing an Undead opponent or possibly Reverse Lifeforced Necromancer.
Regards,
Alavatar Peece
Red Wizard of the Crossroads
P.S. I believe you meant to say Chaotic Expanded Enchantment charms.
P.P.S. I am not familiar with the term "Celestine". Could you define that for me, please?
Redcloud
Scholar
Mobius said:
Ok, I have issues with this statement. I'm an Elf, I'm vehemently against necromancy in any form, yet I've used a bane necromancy charm in the past. My logic wasn't as twisted and maleficent as you would suggest. It was more along the lines of "I don't want the taint of that wreched abbhoration of the earth to touch me." Could I have used a cloak to the same effect, yes. Was there a cloak charm available to me, no. A bane ritual is purely a protective measure. As for the benefit from baning back such a wicked incantation, I have sad before, more often than not, the person or vile creature that summoned forth the energies is most likely immune to it, or has a protective against it, and my chances of having the spell resisted, defended against or to just have no effect is high, there by dissapating the spell harmlessly. If it indeed harms then, then they reaped the causes of thier own misdeeds and have been punished. To use your Dagger reference... if you have a poisoned dagger and intend to use it to murder someone, is your victim to be at fault if they reposte it into your chest? I think not....
~Redcloud Blooddawn
When I posed this question I was not expecting the extreme silliness of comparing a bane necromancy item to an activate chaos strom item. The latter is chaos. The former is not.
I was also shocked to see implications that it would be better to endure the chaos than return it to its creator. Why give the necromancer a 'victory' by letting him take down a good elf like Redcloud with earth corrupting magic? Our job is to fight necromancers rather than to endure as many necromantic spells as possible.
Sparktet
I was also shocked to see implications that it would be better to endure the chaos than return it to its creator. Why give the necromancer a 'victory' by letting him take down a good elf like Redcloud with earth corrupting magic? Our job is to fight necromancers rather than to endure as many necromantic spells as possible.
Sparktet
Littlebeard, Redcloud, Red Wizard Peece - This is, indeed, a lively and interesting discussion and I appreciate that we are able to engage it without devolving into threats and bickering. The world benefits when we use our Gift.
Perhaps, in the pursuit of clarity, I should expose the root of the argument I'm forwarding. I am working from the premise, Chaos should be avoided because it hurts people and the Earth. The Plane of Chaos is fine, where it is, but when agents channel that energy, bringing it into this realm, the outcome is pain, death, and entropy. Hence, Chaos is "bad" and any effort we can forward to reduce the pain and suffering caused by it should be taken.
I also have a series of postulates I think we agree upon: Bane Chaos charms can only be used against Chaotic effects; the intent of the Bane charm is to attack one's enemy with their own spell, as oppossed to a Cloak charm which is solely designed to protect; the end and most preferable result of a successfully activated Bane Chaos charm is the attacker being afflicted with Chaos energy and, hopefully, neutralized.
With all this in mind, we are faced with a question: is it "right" (morally and logically) to use Bane Chaos charms?
On the one side, we have the practical stance offered by Redcloud, Littlebeard, and Red Wizard Peece, namely: Yes! The Bane charm is a powerful weapon against chaoticians. It damages them with their own spells. It expends their resources and creates hesitation in their mind over recasting such effects. In the pursuit of ending Chaos, all tools, which aren't obviously nefarious, should be used. Yes, this means people are hurt by Chaos, and this is bad, but a far larger number of people are saved, including the bearer of the charm. In the long run, it's much better to snuff out any given chaotician before they do some real damage, then quibble about this or that particular. It's the big picture with which we should be concerned - the greater good.
On the other side, we have the proscriptive stance offered by staunch anti-Chaos advocates: No! In the end, whether it's from a Bane Chaos charm, an Expanded Enchantment charm (thank you, Red Wizard, for the nomenclature), or actually calling upon Chaos, the end result is still a person being harmed by Chaos. There is no excuse for allowing, through either omission or comission, people to be affected by Chaos, especially when there are alternatives. One can create Spell Shield charms or Cloak charms or other defensives which don't result in Chaos hurting people. As soon as you accept any portion of Chaos into your life, the door is opened and more will flood in. Better to take this tool from the arsenal and destroy it, along with other Chaos charms, than risk infection. If that means life is touch harder, so be it - it's the greater good.
And those, I believe, are the two arguments in place. In the long run, it's a question of whether the ends justify the means. Correct me, if I'm wrong.
Master Dramthin Hartsboon
Simple Keeper of the Tainted Grove
Perhaps, in the pursuit of clarity, I should expose the root of the argument I'm forwarding. I am working from the premise, Chaos should be avoided because it hurts people and the Earth. The Plane of Chaos is fine, where it is, but when agents channel that energy, bringing it into this realm, the outcome is pain, death, and entropy. Hence, Chaos is "bad" and any effort we can forward to reduce the pain and suffering caused by it should be taken.
I also have a series of postulates I think we agree upon: Bane Chaos charms can only be used against Chaotic effects; the intent of the Bane charm is to attack one's enemy with their own spell, as oppossed to a Cloak charm which is solely designed to protect; the end and most preferable result of a successfully activated Bane Chaos charm is the attacker being afflicted with Chaos energy and, hopefully, neutralized.
With all this in mind, we are faced with a question: is it "right" (morally and logically) to use Bane Chaos charms?
On the one side, we have the practical stance offered by Redcloud, Littlebeard, and Red Wizard Peece, namely: Yes! The Bane charm is a powerful weapon against chaoticians. It damages them with their own spells. It expends their resources and creates hesitation in their mind over recasting such effects. In the pursuit of ending Chaos, all tools, which aren't obviously nefarious, should be used. Yes, this means people are hurt by Chaos, and this is bad, but a far larger number of people are saved, including the bearer of the charm. In the long run, it's much better to snuff out any given chaotician before they do some real damage, then quibble about this or that particular. It's the big picture with which we should be concerned - the greater good.
On the other side, we have the proscriptive stance offered by staunch anti-Chaos advocates: No! In the end, whether it's from a Bane Chaos charm, an Expanded Enchantment charm (thank you, Red Wizard, for the nomenclature), or actually calling upon Chaos, the end result is still a person being harmed by Chaos. There is no excuse for allowing, through either omission or comission, people to be affected by Chaos, especially when there are alternatives. One can create Spell Shield charms or Cloak charms or other defensives which don't result in Chaos hurting people. As soon as you accept any portion of Chaos into your life, the door is opened and more will flood in. Better to take this tool from the arsenal and destroy it, along with other Chaos charms, than risk infection. If that means life is touch harder, so be it - it's the greater good.
And those, I believe, are the two arguments in place. In the long run, it's a question of whether the ends justify the means. Correct me, if I'm wrong.
Master Dramthin Hartsboon
Simple Keeper of the Tainted Grove
AllianceCHI
Baron
ah tink ah git yar point Dramthin... your not trying ta say that baning chaos is "bad" or is to be likened ta "casting" or "channeling" chaos. Only dat one must realize dat in effect when dey are banning chaos dey git something from dat energy?
Its a question of slippery slope fur many dat they aren't willing ta admit ta da statement:
" Bah using a bane chaos am aditting dat ah stand ta gain from chaos"
Because many would assume dat benefiting from chaos implies a crime or any additional crime or destruction of da fabric by chaos. Dats kinda a slippery slope ta stand on of course as when a necromancer casts necromancy even if ah don't bane it i still gunna kill and most likely take his stuff. In da way am I benefiting from chaos? Not dat am not ok with sayin it... ah benefit each time a dumb necromancer tinks a drain is gunna remove me.... he eats is own drain and den justice is served swiftly with mah spells and blades.
Theres 2 schools of thought da consider though.... 1 is dat a bane destroys da spell and reforms it as da owners spell... da second is dat a bane bounches a spell back ta its caster. both these schools a toutght are valid as scholars have argued dese concepts fur centuries, however, only one allows fur da banning a chaos without further compoudin ta negative maigcs already put inta play. fur da record ah beleive da second and thus banning a spell does not add chaos ta da fabric... if ah beleive da second... I would, in a heartbeat destroy all mah bane necromancies.... da important ting ta consider, fur all adventurers... if if dey beleive in da second school ah thought because theyve studied it, or because its a convenient ommision of da fact.
is dat sorta wut yar tinkin?
Its a question of slippery slope fur many dat they aren't willing ta admit ta da statement:
" Bah using a bane chaos am aditting dat ah stand ta gain from chaos"
Because many would assume dat benefiting from chaos implies a crime or any additional crime or destruction of da fabric by chaos. Dats kinda a slippery slope ta stand on of course as when a necromancer casts necromancy even if ah don't bane it i still gunna kill and most likely take his stuff. In da way am I benefiting from chaos? Not dat am not ok with sayin it... ah benefit each time a dumb necromancer tinks a drain is gunna remove me.... he eats is own drain and den justice is served swiftly with mah spells and blades.
Theres 2 schools of thought da consider though.... 1 is dat a bane destroys da spell and reforms it as da owners spell... da second is dat a bane bounches a spell back ta its caster. both these schools a toutght are valid as scholars have argued dese concepts fur centuries, however, only one allows fur da banning a chaos without further compoudin ta negative maigcs already put inta play. fur da record ah beleive da second and thus banning a spell does not add chaos ta da fabric... if ah beleive da second... I would, in a heartbeat destroy all mah bane necromancies.... da important ting ta consider, fur all adventurers... if if dey beleive in da second school ah thought because theyve studied it, or because its a convenient ommision of da fact.
is dat sorta wut yar tinkin?
Redcloud
Scholar
Ya see, people keep focusing on the return of damage to the caster of the chaos spell. I put forth, 9 time out of ten, the caster of such a spell is immune to it's effect, so the only "benefit" I recieve is one less wound on my body. For the few casters that it does affect, I can not help that they chose to cast the spell and chose not to protect themselves appropriately. I use spell shields, I also carry the bane item for the times where my spell shiled is gone and i get hit with another spell (usually the product of the popper spell-real spell combo), and if there was a cloak charm available, I'd probably carry that too.
Just race change into an Ogre. The Deadlands needs more of us, and you don't need any namby pamby magic items to keep you from being able to run at a full sprint at a necromancer and Tusk him in the daddy parts. THATS how we should prevent necromancy! Necromancers are a cowardly lot, else they wouldn't use magic that is actually useless in combat. They prey upon the common folk's fear of chaos and use spells that will get them executed when a Paralysis incantation would be just as effective, not to mention legal. What do necromancers fear? Don't know, I've never had a conversation with one that lasted more than 18 hours of them making long vowel sounds at the top of their lungs until their vocal cords rupture, but I'm betting that Emasculation using only a series of roofing nails as tools would be an effective deterrent after the first time it happens in the public square.
-Lorgwut
-Lorgwut
Air Raksa
Scholar
I agree. If you kill a necromancer before you need to use a bane ritual, then this conversation is pointless.
To Bane Necromancy is not illegal in any land' which I have traveled in. Necromancy can heal the undead substantially, it would be wise to consider that before you use such magic'. No sense in healing the angry dread lord for all the punishment you just put it through. It seem' to me that the Bane Necromancy Ritual mostly can benefit the undead and chaos and death elemental', since they use that magic the most. Undead and Necromancer' are really weak so they need all the help that they can get.
Baning Necromancy is not wrong... it is just not really that smart for the living. I really hope that this isn't a case of it took this long for the elf' to decide that this should only now be illegal and people are going to start getting executed over this. That would be silly. The Bane Ritual has been around for a really, really long time.
Does any one else notice that Ogre' get all unhinged when they talk about this topic. Is publically using torture okay if the victim is a necromancer? Does it cost money to watch? Lorgwut, you ram your tusk' into necromancer' daddy-part'! That is brutal. You are brutal. How many roofing nail' do you recommend?
-Air Raksa
To Bane Necromancy is not illegal in any land' which I have traveled in. Necromancy can heal the undead substantially, it would be wise to consider that before you use such magic'. No sense in healing the angry dread lord for all the punishment you just put it through. It seem' to me that the Bane Necromancy Ritual mostly can benefit the undead and chaos and death elemental', since they use that magic the most. Undead and Necromancer' are really weak so they need all the help that they can get.
Baning Necromancy is not wrong... it is just not really that smart for the living. I really hope that this isn't a case of it took this long for the elf' to decide that this should only now be illegal and people are going to start getting executed over this. That would be silly. The Bane Ritual has been around for a really, really long time.
Does any one else notice that Ogre' get all unhinged when they talk about this topic. Is publically using torture okay if the victim is a necromancer? Does it cost money to watch? Lorgwut, you ram your tusk' into necromancer' daddy-part'! That is brutal. You are brutal. How many roofing nail' do you recommend?
-Air Raksa
In addition to being surprised by the talk of baning necroamncy being in some way similar to casting it, I'm also surprised by the talk of daddy-parts. Perhaps we can save them for another time and place?
By the way, several people have commented that baning necromancy is not too smart since many necromancers are healed by the effect. To me that makes little difference as I don't expect I'll ever be in a position where I want to bane or cloak a cause mortal wounds spell (unless perhaps I needed to break a spell shield). It's the withers and drains that I need to thwart in order to reach and slay my target.
Sparktet Bone Littlebeard
By the way, several people have commented that baning necromancy is not too smart since many necromancers are healed by the effect. To me that makes little difference as I don't expect I'll ever be in a position where I want to bane or cloak a cause mortal wounds spell (unless perhaps I needed to break a spell shield). It's the withers and drains that I need to thwart in order to reach and slay my target.
Sparktet Bone Littlebeard
AllianceNJ
Spellsword
Excellent topic, I will bring this up at the next squires meeting in Icenia.
Common sense would say dont bane or reflect necromancy back at a caster who can be healed by such a spell.
Morally Id say reflecting or baning Necromancy is wrong, but it is not currently illegal.
~Lady Knight Glorianna Wyndancer Nordenn
Kingdom of Icenia
Duchy of Ashbury
Barony of Nordenn
Common sense would say dont bane or reflect necromancy back at a caster who can be healed by such a spell.
Morally Id say reflecting or baning Necromancy is wrong, but it is not currently illegal.
~Lady Knight Glorianna Wyndancer Nordenn
Kingdom of Icenia
Duchy of Ashbury
Barony of Nordenn