>>33080907
No.

>>33080907
Nope. Nor does Chaos.

Beautiful series, Time's Master by Louise Cooper, where Order is a bunch of assholes and Chaos are pretty bro-tier gods.

>>33080907
not really no. its easier that way as the dark is scary, but thats only because humans are not made for living in the dark.

File: sandman.jpg (53 KB, 842x1191)

53 KB JPG

Neil Gaiman's Sandman is pretty "The Darkness" and he's not evil. It's a phenomenal series, buy all the trades and enjoy

The Sun burns people to death, highlighted their every flaw to mockery and cruelly watches people die of thirst.

The night brings relief an refreshing chill of the Dark. It hides flaws.

>>33081006
Wut? No, he ain't.

>>33081006
He's Dream, not Darkness. He may look a bit edgy, but he isn't either good or bad, he's just a force of nature (although he has a kind heart, and he can get a bit passionate some times, but always tries to fix his mistakes... Even if he does it after 10k years)

>>33081278
Dark other pls go I tell Gesar on you

File: 101625.jpg (85 KB, 960x715)

85 KB JPG

>>33080907
It's generally not a good idea to be a special snowflake edgelord faggot, so you're stepping on thin ice.

But yes, there's ways that Darkness can be something other than evil.
Even while sticking to standard tropes, archetypes, and symbolism, so you don't have to deal with contrarian faggotry.

The most stable possible use for darkness as a positive influence would be fetal comfort.
The uterus is a --dark-- warm moist place and can in turn be associated with nurturing.
There for Darkness would best serve symbolically as a nurturing mother-like entity or character.

File: trade__halloween_succubus(...).png (25 KB, 150x143)

25 KB PNG

>>33081708
>There for Darkness would best serve symbolically as a nurturing mother-like entity or character
Go'cha.
Thanks hun. <3

File: 103544.jpg (76 KB, 500x465)

76 KB JPG

>>33081739
What have I done?
What foul horrors have I bred?

File: 1403318949696.png (93 KB, 250x242)

93 KB PNG

>>33080907

>>33081739
By turns, Light is the stern dad figure who throws you at a bunch of wolves to learn the truths of the world the hard way.
Then calls you a faggot if you complain.

>>33081820
That's actually not far from the truth, given Christianity and most sun gods.

File: batmanthumb.jpg (217 KB, 1280x720)

217 KB JPG

/thread

In the next KH game the big bad is some Light dude, right?

File: 1400028624721.jpg (71 KB, 1680x1050)

71 KB JPG

What about Batman?

>>33081954
>>33081971
Necessary evil. Even Batman itself acknowledges that.

>>33081954
Do you think darkness is your ally?

File: 1395630964518.jpg (230 KB, 900x675)

230 KB JPG

>2014
>Thinking good and evil exist

>>33081925
>>33081820
From what I've read of Campbell's Masks of God series (which is old and outdated, but still fun mythology), the darkness equals down equals death/return to womb equals woman is pretty central to human myths. Likewise is the heavens equals up equals the sun equals angry sun man god equals I'm sorry I disappointed you daddy.

The dark is the thing that gets you killed by enemies, or hunters, or whatever. It is no wonder we turn the darkness into evil, and darker beings are demonized. It is just instinctual.

On the other hand, darkness can represent being at peace, the cold stillness, and feminine magicks like childbirth.

It is amazing how much it all comes together, isn't it? Women are the magical ones, women are the birthgivers, women are naturally transformative (growing breasts, growing babies, magical harmless bleeding), and then they get related to moistness, the moon, darkness, death and birth.

I was thinking of this as I watched that new X-men movie today. Most shapeshifting villains tend to be female (by my count), and female villains are often seen as tricksters/manipulators/shifters. We humans can't get enough of this stuff.

>>33082022
Hows community college treating you?
it's ok man.
its cheaper than state, and it really doesn't matter where you get your associates.

>>33082037
Tell me how you really feel anon.

>>33080907
In ancient egypt, the concepts of shadow and darkness were totally different from what we understand now. Since the sun was extremely brutal, shadow and darkness were absolutely positive concepts. Shadow was seen as protection or benediction. I had nothing to do with treachery or ignorance.

>>33082053
like a /v/irgin
posting for the very first time

>>33082144
We could be having an interesting discussion. Instead, you do this.

>>33082170
but I made a madona/4chan reference
its the highlight of the thread!

>>33082188
I laughed way too fucking hard at that.

File: 1398709595621.jpg (44 KB, 300x300)

44 KB JPG

Darkness, shadows, ect is simply a tool that's all too often associated with evil, but like all tools, it has no will of it's own and simply an extension of the user.

The light has had substantial exploration of the idea that it too can be used for evil and wrong-doings, I wouldn't find it too much of a stretch to see darkness taking the other side of the coin.

Perhaps the "good" side of darkness is an elusive, protective, non-combatant. Take the usual tropes of light and flip them to find the strengths of shadow, then put a positive spin on it.

>>33082788
I was going to go on a tirade about how tieflings have the appearances of devils, but are not evil like them (at least, not the vast majority like their fiendish counterparts), but I lost my train of thought, which is why I included the picture. Take it as something anecdotal about how something can come with all the trappings of something traditionally evil, yet is not evil. (and by the same token, things which have the hallmarks of good, may not be good).

I'd just like to invite everyone in this thread to read The Romance of Photogen and Nycteris, a wonderful little fairy tale in which the night is not evil nor the day good.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/macdonald/daynight/files/daynight.html

>>33080907
Nah but people are unimaginative fucks and go with the classical ideas rather than try and make up their own, so there you go.

>>33080907
Darkness is not evil, it is a force of nature opposite of light. It is the source of creation, power, and rest.
>>33081627
This guy says it without realizing it: Darkness isn't good or evil, it just is. You can use the darkness to help you and strengthen you, but it's dangerous.

>>33082006
So you don't care about anything that happens to you?

>>33082006
>Real life
>Thinking Good and Evil don't exist.

>>33082006
I seriously hate when people say this shit. Of course good, and evil exists.

The only people who think otherwise are edgy faggots.

>>33082006
Good and Evil exist as standards in human society, which is the whole point.
What don't exist are Pure Good and Pure Evil.

>>33080907

I'm going to be the contrarion faggot and say yes.

there is a reason why darkness is associated with evil, it conceals.

Brigands and thieves come in the night, illicit or unethical business is usually carried out at night, all to conceal movement and identity.
To lie is to conceal the truth.

Darkness is associated with evil because darkness conceals the works of men and men who act intentionally under concealment usually act for the detriment of others or the seflish benefit of themselves.

Light is associated with good because it reveals, when you do things in the light you are not hiding anything, you aren't concealing your whereabouts or actions or intents. People can see and watch you and as such you don't do anything that would make them suspicious or implicate you in any crimes.

This is only generally true yes but when dealing the archetypal light and darkness talking about anything other than generalities is acontextual.

Only modern men who have so illuminated the world so that even the night looks like day, and have learned to do evil in the light even as they would in darkness, can be so backwards as to disassociate darkness from evil.

The darkness is associated with evil secondarily; it is primarily associated with the unknown, whose insidiousness is that it may conceal evil and you may never know.

>>33086111
The old joke about "I'm not afraid of the dark at all. I'm afraid of the shit that MIGHT be out there."

>>33080907

Yes, it is inherently an edgy power

I always considered Darkness as "uncaring." You want power? Okay, here you go. Now fuck off, my stories are on. It's the "quick and easy," path, which is why it is often used by those who want their power right here and now.

Light on the other hand is a hard path to follow, but you come out stronger at the end.

File: magical girl exdeath.jpg (495 KB, 600x800)

495 KB JPG

You know what's edgier? The Void

>>33086196
What's the difference?

File: orz [fingers].jpg (185 KB, 1408x1424)

185 KB JPG

>>33080907
Darkness has always been man's ally. It descends to blind, cool, and shepherd. In ages past, it would herd primitive man around his camp fire, convince him to remain there, safe, until the danger had passed.
It continues to aid the human race, unthanked and unnoticed.
People think that the human race evolved to fear the dark. They are wrong. Darkness chose to shield humans from worse things. Things they should not see, should not know. It is not the darkness that children fear after all, but what moves unseen and unbidden in the darkness.
Darkness protects you from *them*.

File: 1400116348646.png (796 KB, 1912x4838)

796 KB PNG

>>33080907
No, it doesn't.
Same way necromancers don't have to be evil.

>>33086230
To put it in comparison, Darkness is the shadow created where light can't reach, while Void is the lack of light in the first place and is often associated with the emptiness of space.
Void usually has more to do with erasing existences, removing physical matter, manipulating dimensions, creating wormholes and dark holes. It also not elemental, since the general idea is manipulating literal "nothingness".

>>33086242
>Person who binds the souls of the living and desecrates the dead
>Ever a good person

No. You are wrong

>>33086323
Stop being so narrow-minded. There are plenty of ways a necromancer can do good.

>>33086349
Only if their ends justify the means, and it never does, because raising the souls of the dead or having a rotting corpse walk around is never a reasonable fucking means of doing anything.

>>33086233
Darkness does not protect you from Orz, because Orz have many other ways to detect you besides sight. They are *many fingers* who can *smell* you from anywhere.

>>33086396
Once again, you are being narrow-minded. Did you even read the image I posted earlier?
Just like how you can make a healer evil, you can make a necromancer good. All it takes is some imagination.

>>33086560
That's barely even a Necromancer, it's just an old man in a cursed family. He doesn't have to revive any corpses, because those corpses revive on their own, and have given their consent beforehand.

>>33086560
>you can make a necromancer good!
>you just have to completely remove everything that makes a necromancer evil and only keep the "often around with undead that works with him" part!

>>33086323
Probably not, but what about one who reads the future through bones and acts as a medium between the dead and their living relatives?

>>33086560
>Just like how you can make a healer evil
And how would you do that?

>>33086639
Then they're just a medium and a soothsayer. Traditional necromancy doesn't exist by the same name in almost any fantasy setting, just like how fantasy paladins aren't the twelve finest soldiers of Charlemagne's court.

File: insanely_twisted_shadow_p(...).png (315 KB, 615x347)

315 KB PNG

>>33080907
>Does the darkness always have to be evil?

Nooooo... It doesn't, and I certainly subscribe to the ideal that shadows do not need to be evil

However.

In many systems and settings that even go VERY far out of the way to proclaim that Shadows are not evil (Such as M:tG, WoD, D&D/Path). You are often Extremely harded pressed to find anything that isn't evil. Even more so to find something that is dare I say good. Makes it very hard to win arguments about shadow not being evil.

>>33086596
>>33086615
Yes, and so? The whole of necromancy is to use magic in order to summon the dead for some purpose, usually to gain lost knowledge or to resurrect. There is nothing that directly states that it must only be used for evil.
While using magic to control life and death sounds amoral, it is essentially no different from any other form of magic that can be used for selfish purpoises. Just because DnD and other games state that necromancers are evil doesn't mean that they have to be.
>>33086646
Ever read stories about evil/crazy doctors? It think there was a story about a Chaotic Evil healer somewhere and/or edgy applications of healing abilities, but I don't think I saved that one.

>>33086596
>because those corpses revive on their own
They don't. They come back as ghosts and the Caretaker is the one who gives them bodies.

>>33086720
Because companies CERTAINLY don't think that consumers are brainless lemmings who lash out in horror at something 'new'! Noooooo, gosh no.

>>33086783
Generally speaking, anything a good necromancer does is done better by a cleric. Communing with the dead? Speak With Dead means you don't have to wrench the soul back into its body for a few minutes. Reviving the dead? There's a fuckload of spells that revive someone WITHOUT trapping their soul in a rotting cadaver.

The only way to make a good necromancer viable and a reasonable alternative to a cleric is if you're damn well determined to be a gimped cleric, or if you're playing in a setting that abhors clerics for one reason or another.

>>33086242
neat.

>>33086821
>"he comes from a big family and tries to only use family members- either their remains OR their spirits"

He's a possible character concept because he's got DOZENS of consenting subjects. For a necromancer belonging to a family that DOESN'T like the idea of servitude after death, he's going to have to rely on peasants willingly giving their dear old deceased to him or reviving the bodies of murderers and bandits.

>>33086783
>Ever read stories about evil/crazy doctors?
Yes. A lot of them involve making people cling to a thread of life or trying to reanimate the dead or performing horrible experiments to better understand body functions. Medicine is not magic. It's called a healer because their magic heals. It can do no other. It does not require an understanding of how it works, just one of how to do it.

>>33086850
It's all a matter of roleplaying, at this point.
>>33086897
You'd think there would be some loyal warriors/knights that would consent to becoming undead just so that they could keep fighting for their homeland/kingdom even after dieing.

>>33086960
I think those loyal warriors/knights would prefer being resurrected traditionally. Bare minimum justification would be that they have very little choice in the matter, and are required by law to fight until the war is won, or they're only allowing themselves to be trapped in an undead form until a real cleric can resurrect them.

>>33086914
Healing magic totally has applications for evil, like torturing someone by keeping them alive with their organs outside their body.
Or breaking a bone and healing it in such a way that it sets improperly.
Or getting parts of different animals and putting them together in ways that would be impossible to survive without healing magic.

>>33086985
Or there aren't enough clerics/diamonds to resurrect them all.
Or resurrection doesn't work like that in-setting.
Or their nation's god does not have resurrection as part of their portfolio.

>>33086985
You know, there are some settings that simply don't have clerics that can resurrect easily, or resurrect a large amount of people.
Also, the point of being undead is that you have an indefinite lifespan and a body that won't go down from normally mortal wounds.

>>33080907
Only if evil uses it.

Which it most of the time does.

>>33086987
Hmm, yeah fair enough. Depends on where the healing comes from. Half the time it's from clerics or nature spirits or something.

>>33087026
"The nation's clerics are too poor to resurrect our finest soldiers" seems like a great quest hook. Unless the necromancer is in the party and doesn't care that they're sending the person they REALLY need to be intact into battle, I'd keep the corpse back at mother base as I go out to pillage Fantasy De Beers.

Some other guy ITT talked about how the only way to make good necromancers viable is to make clerics unviable. I'd say "resurrection is significantly worse than being made into an undead creature" makes clerics pretty unviable.

I'm unsure what setting you're thinking of, but D&D doesn't restrict certain Cleric spells to certain gods, Raise Dead being one of them.

>>33080907
This is the whole negative is as bad as positive energy argument isn't it?

Like some faggot is gonna yell that to much positive energy causes super cancer while negative does not, thinking that creates some kind of neutrality between the two.

>>33087054
Plus, there's technically no real limit as to the abilities you can give an undead if you apply enough SCIENCEMAGIC.
Regeneration to a form that isn't rotting? Sure.
Disinfection? Why not.
Working senses? 'kay.

>>33087109
Vanilla DnD doesn't restrict cleric spells, no.
I do, however.

It never really made sense to me that all these different gods with different domains gave almost the exact same power list to their worshippers.
Or that a druid of an arboreal forest would have the same abilities as one of an equatorial desert.
Or that a demonblooded and dragonblooded sorceror would both be able to choose the exact same spells.

>>33087136
Seems like a lot more work just getting a corpse to feel human than just reviving the corpse INTO a human. If you can't truly resurrect someone, then why not plop their soul in a construct, so that they can gain senses and regeneration in something that is basically just a human that makes unpleasant noises when you poke it.

>>33087210
That's assuming that kind of magic is commonplace and known to the caster.

>>33087194
It's weird, but there's little reason to mechanically restrict someone's choices, when you can merely roleplay it out. If your cleric of the goddess of bacterial infections and gangrene is trying to clean a wound, just tell him that his character feels a bit wrong about doing it, but will continue to do so.

>>33087232
It takes just a bit of experimentation finding the bridge between "can fit in a human corpse" and "can fit in a human-shaped construction". Unless you need someone to fight and undie for you NOW, it's better to place their soul in the objectively better body.

>>33087234
If it's the goddess of bacterial infections, then the cleric should not have the power to remove a bacterial infection, as that would go against their goddess, and removing the source of her powers would probably not be a power of hers anyway.

There's a difference between restricting someone's choices, and playing in a different setting where vanilla rules don't really apply.

>>33087136
The whole thing about necromancy is pretty vague. Often it is much closer to medicine that actual healing is, as necromancers are often depicted as experimenting with bodies, making them much more knowledgeable about the anatomical structure of different beings that they resurrect.
If the setting has healing that isn't all-mighty (not all that effective against illnesses, infections and poison), then a necromancer can be made out as a kind of doctor that performs a necessary evil for the sake of learning how to medically heal or enhance the human body, which is historically accurate.

>>33087279
If he's knowledgeable about bacterial infections, he should logically know about how to both induce and remove them.

>>33087259
And how do you make the construction? Is the mage that wants to bring back the soul able to make constructs? How good can they make them? I thought they were a necromancer, so constructs wouldn't be their area of expertise.
How would they get the grounding to start learning a new system of magic anyway?

>>33087287
Why would a necromancer be the only one to experiment with bodies? A healer, cleric, shaman, or alchemist could just as easily perform autopsies and medical experiments to discover the concept of pasteurization and soap. I'm pretty sure they'd be getting more support than the necromancer, since their employer KNOWS they can't do anything fishy with the body afterwards.

>>33086646
... by having him add on side effects with his healing. Like how in NWN the plague was spread by "blessings" or how you can use bloodmagic in L5R to tell a corrupt spirit to sew up some wounds in an innocent, while inflicting him with the taint.

Or, ya know.
Maybe the evil healer is just some sort of badguy with a talent for magic who can see the value of keeping talented minions alive.

>>33087054
Yes but at the same time most undead are portrayed as evil and greedy assholes or simply mindless killers.

And if you look at it that way then why not ask the god of infinite good )who gives you a free ticket to heaven (which is real) if you pray to it) to simply keep the heroes and warriors alive?

Because either death doesn't work like that and not even a god of infinite good can bring them back and all necromancers do is bring back the horrible, soulless image of the dead or the setting creators just didn't think about it.

>>33087306
Using what?
He's a cleric, so his powers come from his goddess, if his goddess doesn't want the infection removed, or her powers don't extend to the removal of bacterial infections, then he can't heal it magically.

He can still heal it with other methods, though.

>>33087344
Presumably, he can explain the situation to his matron. Goddess willing, she will forgive this one.

>>33087329
Because, as someone above mentioned, magic is often faith-based or uses nature spirits to perform miracles.
Either way, it all depends on the setting and how it is played out. You can easily just say that due to the unpleasant nature of necromancy, the ones using it for medical research are much more inclined to take risks and/or perform daring experiments that would sicken most others.

>>33087389
Oh certainly, but he shouldn't be able to do so out of hand without consulting, and his success still depends on whether or not his goddess has that power in the first place (she probably does, given bacteria are her domain).

>>33087405
Then the matter still comes down to who would trust the necromancer enough to practice his findings. Other necromancers, sure, but would healers and traditional doctors?

>>33087279
>If it's the goddess of bacterial infections, then the cleric should not have the power to remove a bacterial infection, as that would go against their goddess, and removing the source of her powers would probably not be a power of hers anyway.

Just because she's the goddess of bacterial infection doesn't mean she has an agenda to increase the amount of bacterial infection in the world. It might be the opposite, every plague gives her a huge backlog of paperwork to deal with and is generally a pain.

>>33087341
>Yes but at the same time most undead are portrayed as evil and greedy assholes or simply mindless killers.
The keyword is "portrayed". There is no reason why you can't stray from the norm and think up a more-or-less logical explanation.
Because not all magical settings work that way.

>>33087440
This assumes gods have to deal with paperwork or that there is a celestial bureacracy of some form, there may not be.
But yeah, you're right, she might not be all that for everyone falling over and dying of plague.

>>33087439
What if the necromancer is doing it for a personal reason like saving his ill child/lover or the local village that has been hit by a plague?
Also, if you want to make it out as complicated, then the necromancer may be serving a broad-minded lord that makes him out as an experienced cleric and hides the truth of such experiments while only presenting the miraculous results to the populace. While some may be suspicious, it's not like we usually think about how many people were harmed during the test period of the very medical drugs we use today.
Now that I think about it, you could spin an interesting story out of this.

"There's nothing there in the dark that wasn't there in the light."

>>33087539
Well, except the Shadow Beasts and the ninja. Other than that, you're spot on.

>>33087558
>Implying ninja need shadows to hide

>>33081278
>The Sun burns people to death, highlighted their every flaw to mockery and cruelly watches people die of thirst.

I think the Chimu worshipped the moon as their primary deity and saw the sun as a destroyer deity, sort of like the devil of their religion.
They lived in the desert and were conquered by the incas who worshipped the sun.

File: 06_374e43a2809f570.png (890 KB, 888x1300)

890 KB PNG

>>33087539
The Dark say otherwise.

>>33087539
Yeah, but you can't see much in the dark. Things that seemed fine in the light change in the dark. The only solution is to bring light wherever you go.

>>33087445
At the same time you could basically go out of your way to create fantasy eclipse phase without the whole undead deal, that is outside the norm as well.
And the most obvious of all the logical choices if anything would be "Ask god, he literally makes things exist out of nowhere. He's also the avatar of good." Why would you want to touch something that's been described in most settings as despicable and corrupting when you have a literal powerful super being capable of bringing ol opa back from the dead at the blink of an eye.

>Because not all magical settings work that way.
No see that's the thing though, any setting where you take and make them seem evil at first you usually get the problem that they didn't think about how they could be good. I'm guessing you are taking from DnD which quite frankly is a mess to begin with.

No i get it, it's a original character(Well everyone tries to use it nowadays), a twist to things and it's about skellingtons and science (science used slightly, less scientific and more... "Oh i discovered stuff through... stuff and smokey vials!" that people romanticizes about) is cool and all that. But as long as you mooch of a non self made setting that doesn't really support that necromancy is somehow both evil and usable at once while there's an instant respawn button up in the clouds without adding in more things, and then you are basically homebrewing. It's not that necromancy can't be good it's the fact that the setting wasn't made with good necromancers in mind and honestly there are probably a few outside that have made their own thing and made them good, look at guild wars or something, those undead aren't naturally ferocious and a natural catastrophe.

>>33087785
Good luck finding a fuckton of diamonds.

>>33087910
Okay so you wanna go through that route will you?

Diamonds are piss easy to find, they are everywhere in africa, it's mostly by tradition and a good amount of monopoly they are so "rare"

>>33087988
That's assuming the game takes place in africa, or a place with similar diamond count.
And then there's the thing with finding a sufficiently high-levelled cleric.

>>33087785
You know, i'm not really talking about DnD or any other game strictly, but just how necromancer are generally portrayed in fiction.
I was never really considered literally asking YHWH for a favor, since that kinda limits the imagination and makes things too simple. Literal Deus Ex Machina just kinda destroys the point.

>>33088038
No i was just answering the diamond question, i'm not gonna argue that DnD logic is really just shit.

That was the whole argument to begin with: Don't use DnD or any other setting because then you are just jumping through a loophole that the creators, not the setting, hadn't thought about.
It's like looking at pun pun or any other game breaking thing that uses shit descriptions and number crunching and go "Totally legit, legally canon immortally here we come". Because you are working out of the boundaries of what THEY thought.

The time when someone does actually think of it and actually makes their own where necromancy was not made just to be an evil to point fingers at and yell "bad!" or a good god that won't use it's infinite power to help everyone.

>>33088068
Also both are equally imaginative because they are both looking at poorly described our thought out powers and going "What if i use these in ways they are not intended to go."

>>33088222
You know, the whole argument never had anything to do with DnD to begin with.

>>33080907
of course not, the dark protects you and keeps you from the people who want to hurt you. the sun throws you into the open to let them kill you

>>33088322
>The dark protects you
No it doesn't. In the dark you can not see people or learn where they are unless they make themselves known to you or you are observant enough to see them. In the light you can see all people and predict their intentions. The sun leaves the sins of men to bare where the night hides it.

>>33088302
Yeah i know, i was also talking about other settings... and responding to one chucklefuck that thought he was clever with the diamond thing.

>>33088445
It's all situational. The dark provides cover for the enemy army, but also hides you from the pursuers searching for you.
What the dark does is entirely reliant on how you use it. The same can be said of the light.

Quick question, if darkness is seen as an edgelord power why isn't light the same?

>>33088893
Because non-edgelords use light. It's mostly Edgelords that use dark. It's the same reason why a man who wants to have his ass fucked is generally seen as gay.

>>33080907
No, it could be just msguided.

>>33088893
light is the faggy mary sue power

of course designating everything as edgelord or mary sue is retarded, so really dark and light are just things that can be used,

>>33080907
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSacredDarkness

>>33081739
/ss/uccubus time?

>>33089081
Ironically, faggy mary sues use the powers of darkness a LOT more often.

File: art_3_by_spmaker82-d4oarp3.png (63 KB, 801x481)

63 KB PNG

>>33086323

>A Living soul is bound to a body
>This is also an act of necromancy

So mothers are the most evil insidious necromancers of them all, beyond even that of liches.

So, the fact that life exists is evil in itself by this logic because live=evil

So the only solution is to kill everything ever.

>>33089215
the thing is, necromancers steal other peoples' bodies to plant souls in. Mothers MAKE their own bodies. Self-reliance is completely legal, but theft is not.

>>33089249
So this means if Necromancers use test tube babies, souless clones, and homegrown bones via bone trees, then it's legal?

This feels like some bizzaro murrican Farming statist law

>>33089292
No, because then the test tube baby will have its own soul. If you already have the technology to make whole skeletons and mindless clones, just install a remote control mechanism in them and create an army of clones, no necromancy needed.

Darkness is protective. Not, "low light level" bullshit that still lets predators adapted to it see you.
Pure darkness hides and protects you. To extend it, Darkness can act as a sort of Null/Stasis Dimension used defensively where nothing can hurt you there and preserve things that would otherwise decay and crumble.

>>33089366
You know, some necromancers don't want random grunts in their army, but rather great minds and warriors.
Also, where will a lone necromancer find the resources for an entire clone army? It just isn't practical.

>>33080907
In Dark Souls, it's not evil, it represented peace, until the fire (which represented life) came and the humans started cropping up. It wasn't until the humans started fucking with their central representative, thus driving him insanely angry, that the darkness became bad, because now the guy who represented the darkness hates human, because they are dicks. What's worse is that he also represents humanity, so now that he doesn't back humanity anymore, the humans start falling apart.

>>33089720
The whole thing about darkness and light in Dark Souls is rather vague. Ultimately, neither are any good at the end and both lead to the same fate for all, though in different time.

>>33089720
>it's not evil, it represented peace
Before fire, dark literally did not exist. Everything was just some dull inbetween. Nobody lived or died, nobody was hot or cold, nobody was enlightened or endarkened.

Darkness in Dark Souls is VERY obviously evil, considering the horrible shit that even small amounts of exposure to the Abyss does to you, and the actively harmful effect of being around pure Humanity, which is native to the Abyss.

>>33089999
The Abyss is dark that's been infected by Manus' insanity, there is darkness in the world that isn't -just- the Abyss. Dark existed immediately after fire came into existence and it wasn't until the humans drove him nuts that the Abyss became a thing.

>>33090086
We don't know if Manus' awakening made the Abyss hostile, but it's probably not the case, considering the treacherous Abyssal Serpents (like Kaathe and Frampt) were the ones to convinced the Oolacilians to wake Manus up in the first place.

>>33089999
Light wasn't really good either, though. While the Light Soul ushered in a new age where the Lords and Gods ruled in prosperity, it also forced humans under an iron first and forced them into the roles of helpless sheep. It was also limited, at the Light ate away at Life to keep itself burning.
The Darkness would end the age and usher in the Age of Man, granting humans freedom and prosperity. Sadly, this would also quickly warp their forms and turn them into mindless beasts with vaguely human forms.

>>33090107
Considering how things played out, it is incredibly likely that is exactly what happened. The Abyssal Serpents are strange, but... considering their size, they might be related to dragons, aside from that, how they fit within the scope of the lore is quite a mystery, they weren't talked about much. Though, by all appearances someone took to killing them all between Dark Souls and Dark Souls II, because there are none to be found, even in suggestion.

>>33090150
>light soul
No such thing.
>it also forced humans under an iron fist
Better slavery than madness at the hands of the Abyss' corruption or nonexistence at the absence of disparity.

The Age of Man is based heavily off its exact words. When darkness envelops the earth and all Fire is extinguished, humans will be reduced to Humanity, the delicious clumps of pure emotion that you routinely fight in the Abyss. Before then, it's going to be a living nightmare, as people who are both TOO FULL of Humanity and ALMOST EMPTY of Humanity go to town on those who've still managed to retain their sanity.

Prolonging the Age of Fire is a temporary, horrible solution, but it's absolutely necessary. At least, it WAS absolutely necessary until Dark Souls 2 introduced the concept of cycles and, no matter what the Chosen Undead picked, his decision will have meant diddly squat by the next revolution of the narrative.

>>33090150
The Light didn't force humans into the role of anything, that was entirely the fault of its wielder, Gwyn.

>>33090225
The Light Soul is the Lord Soul of Gwyn, it is in direct opposition to the Dark Soul of the Furtive Pygmy.

>>33090237
Plus, things looked pretty nice, from what little we've seen of the human world before Hollows ravaged it.

>>33090256
Don't bring that bullshit up. None of that is canon. All we know is that Gwyn, The Witch of Izalith, Nito, and the Furtive Pygmy found Lord Souls, and used them to gain power. The Pygmy is nowhere to be found, and nothing suggests that he became Manus or the Serpents or Humanity in general.

>>33090293
I never said anything about Manus.
And the Dark Soul being humanity is actually so heavily hinted you have to be made of neutronium to not get it by now.

>>33090237
gwyn's reign seems to have been pretty prosperous by most accounts.

>>33090225
The entire first things seemed like a cycle anyway, before life, there is no light, no dark, because it has nothing to judge it, the life (fire) comes along and it begins defining the things around it, as it grows older, it becomes more powerful (maturation into adulthood) but it consumes more and more, but eventually it starts to wane (growing old) and the lights begin fading. And often, before dying, fire (and life) creates something to carry on in it's name, (children/embers, which is why putting out fires in dry areas is such a bitch) before finally fading completely (death), though sometimes it takes time for the light to really catch on to something.

>>33090333
Humanity probably is the Dark Souls as stated in the title. Is there ANY evidence that the Pygmy got the Dark Soul?

>>33080907

Is your species diurnal, and does it rely primarily on eyesight? Then yes.

>>33086783
>Yes, and so? The whole of necromancy is to use magic in order to summon the dead for some purpose
Not even that. The origin of the word comes from the practice of using death to predict the future. You can call the unending shades of the dead to tell you this but you could also count the number of dead sparrows and conclude the summer will be dry without rain. That's totally necromancy.

>>33086985
Being alive comes with bullshit like age and weakness.

Being undead means you never get older, slower, or weaker, and you're always ready to defend Home and Honor in the name of the King.

File: Dark vs Light.jpg (552 KB, 1000x1518)

552 KB JPG

>>33080907
Sure it can, and the light can be just as evil if not worse.

I really have to address the people saying that light is 'good' because it reveals when people are doing something wrong.

I've led an 'interesting' life and I'm flat out telling you that there is no better time to commit a crime than in the middle of the day. As long as you aren't an unsubtle moron (and the morons don't stay on the streets long) you can get away with almost anything.

For instance: When I was selling grass I would walk up to my customers in public, even at their work, and hand them a bouquet of flowers. They would 'tip' me or pay for the 'flowers' and I'd walk away. They'd take the flowers home, dump them out, and take the canister of product at the bottom. Hell, the only time I even encountered the law I got a commission to do a centerpiece for an event they were having.

I have a friend who used to make bank off of showing up at a house in broad daylight and walking off with shit when people weren't home. Since he had a clipboard and a hardhat (and neighbors in big cities don't give a fuck) everyone assumed he knew why he was there. The fucker even had a pocket full of dog treats, the little shits loved him.

Anyways, just saying. Bad shit doesn't just happen during the day, it's easier to pull off because most people leave their guard down.

I actually love the dark. It's restful, cool, and (if you don't blind yourself with a flashlight) remarkably easy to navigate in (outdoors, caves are a sonofabitch). So I'm not sure why modern man has such a hate boner against it.

As to good and evil, I know damn well they exist. Just not in a Platonic sense. And they're distinct from social mores (those are objective (For instance, I sold home grown good without once resorting to violence. It was illegal, but I don't feel it was wrong.) I would say Evil is whatever detracts from the social and physical development of our species and vice versa with Good.

>>33090355
thats like saying "its not canon that gwyn has a skull". its super fucking obvious that the pygmy got the dark soul.

File: succumilf_story.png (76 KB, 1326x1050)

76 KB PNG

>>33081708
>>33081739
>>33089131
Haha, time for succumilf.

>>33085858
Define good and evil

>>33101541
Unless that poster wishes to posit God, he can't possibly do that.

As the oft quoted by murkily attributed line goes: "If God does not exist, everything is permitted."
That is, without God, there are no moral values and duties.

bump because discussion