Magical Ways to Emulate Modern Techonology

[Username17]

Frank - Do you have a more detailed explanation of why having an "always evil to the point of being KoS" power set is a net benefit to a kitchen sink setting? I'm not seeing the benefit of "They use Goudamancy, which requires the committing of atrocities!" as opposed to "They us Goudamancy, and they also commit atrocities with it!"

There are times when you want to unmask the evil vizier as an evil sorcerer. It saves a lot of time if the revelation that he's bad and the revelation that he's a sorcerer don't need separate sets of evidence.

It's structurally useful if you can find a single set of evidence of sorcery that is evil. Lets you spend a lot more narrative time on other shit.

Now the flipside of this is that whatever you make the KoS evil magic, the PCs can't have it. So in Shadowrun the toxic shamans are KOS bad, and the players can't be one. But SR also has bug shamans and blood mages, and that's more flavors of evil than you need and also limiting player options to achieve narrative ends that the other two flavors of evil mages provide. You could open up any two of Toxics, Insect Shamans, and Blood Mages to player use and you'd still have the narrative option of "He's an X, kill him!"

-Username17

[Previn]

There are times when you want to unmask the evil vizier as an evil sorcerer. It saves a lot of time if the revelation that he's bad and the revelation that he's a sorcerer don't need separate sets of evidence.

It's structurally useful if you can find a single set of evidence of sorcery that is evil. Lets you spend a lot more narrative time on other shit.

Isn't the point just to prove that he's evil and not define the methods he uses to do evil? I'm not seeing a lot of time saving. It's probably useful to be able to say that, 'no the vizier isn't a wizard, he's a sorcerer that consorts with dark powers' but really that's kind of a moot point compared to 'he's poisoning the king with nightshade and making deals with the kingdom's enemies for his own ends'?

[Username17]

There are times when you want to unmask the evil vizier as an evil sorcerer. It saves a lot of time if the revelation that he's bad and the revelation that he's a sorcerer don't need separate sets of evidence.

It's structurally useful if you can find a single set of evidence of sorcery that is evil. Lets you spend a lot more narrative time on other shit.

Isn't the point just to prove that he's evil and not define the methods he uses to do evil? I'm not seeing a lot of time saving. It's probably useful to be able to say that, 'no the vizier isn't a wizard, he's a sorcerer that consorts with dark powers' but really that's kind of a moot point compared to 'he's poisoning the king with nightshade and making deals with the kingdom's enemies for his own ends'?

No. The point is that you reveal a random dude as being secretly an evil sorcerer. This upgrades a random npc to a wizard boss fight.

It's like revealing someone as a doppelganger except they are also an evil high priest.

-Username17

[K]

The example is a Craftworld Eldar. It's not an Elf. Literally. With words.

Words matter. The writer of the Eldar knew that people would think he was shitty if he tried to write "Elf' next to the picture of an Eldar. That's why he took his race with some similarities to elves and made a new name for what he was doing. That's what designers do when they don't want people to laugh at them for bad design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundering_ ... lves#Eldar
"The Eldar are those who accepted the summons. Their name, literally Star People, was given to them by Oromë in their own language."

Warhammer totally lifted the Eldar from the president and founder of the Elven Fanboy Club. Eldar are literally a group of elves. That is the origin.

The claim that Warhammer stole a version of elves from Tolkien and didn't just steal a single name is actually irrelevant because it still means that they didn't use the word Elves. They made that choice because the Eldar of Warhammer barely resemble the idea of elves that people have and people would have not liked it if they'd called them elves.

Do I need to explain how words work? I feel like we are in trouble there because I going to need to use words to do that.

If you can find examples of so-called necromancy in popular media that fit how you want to use it, then you aren't being a lazy fuck for using it in that manner with that name.

I don't think it necromancy has to be "squick" because squick to some people is other people's fetish. That's a losing battle. It is magic + death, and then let the chips fall where they may. For many and probably most people death is squick. So you're fine there.

I'm not going to let you pretend to be ignorant any more.

You know that necromancy has a certain set of assumptions because you've consumed hundreds and maybe thousands of computer games, fantasy novels, movies, comics and other pieces of media like everyone who has ever seriously posted on am RPG forum. Pretending that there is no common canon that RPG players are a part of is pathetic trolling.

If you have actually somehow missed hundreds of different representations of necromancy in media, then you can actually be ignored because your opinion has no value. You don't have the proper education to have a valid opinion.

So which is it? Troll or ignorant nobody?

[K]

Of course, it's a given that being undead should be in some important way "worse" than being alive. On account of people mostly wanting to live rather than die. Being undead could be painful or less fulfilling than being alive. The process could be dangerous and becoming undead could leave you a soulless monster. Or a near infinity of other options, because being undead is being "cursed with awesome" at best. It might just be being plain old cursed.

-Username17

To put this argument back on track, undead are supposed to be somehow less good than being alive. I know that people who played Vampire: the Masquerade are used to the undead being sexy superheroes who dress like Eastern European club promoters, but fantasy as a genre is pretty firm on the idea that playing with or being unrefrigerated corpses, talking or not, is bad.

This is why it seems to fit flavorwise that the lair of the undead has dead trees and vegetation. It's easier to make people feel the idea of "death" when dead things live in dead places, and the flipside is that people are not going to feel like the name "undead" means anything if the undead live in a lush and growing forest or are walking through a crowded metropolis. This is why movies like Underworld put the blue filters on the cameras and the cities are always raining, namely that the undead look less silly if the city looks depressing and gloomy.

[Username17]

The claim that Warhammer stole a version of elves from Tolkien and didn't just steal a single name is actually irrelevant because it still means that they didn't use the word Elves. They made that choice because the Eldar of Warhammer barely resemble the idea of elves that people have and people would have not liked it if they'd called them elves.

Stop being deliberately contrarion. The Warhammer Eldar are space elves. The Warhammer Orks are space orcs. That is what they are. That is what they have always been. That is why the fucking "High Elves" of Warhammer Fantasy use some of the same models as the "Eldar" of 40k. That is why the fucking "Orcs and Goblins" of Warhammer Fantasy use some of the same models as the "Orks" of 40k.

You get absolutely zero points claiming that the Eldar aren't Elves. For fuck's sake Eldar is a word for Elves. And not just in one or two sources.

Just fucking stop it. You're arguing for the sake of arguing and making yourslef look really juvenile. Claiming that you win all teh internets because someone else didn't say Simon Says or some similar sophistry doesn't actually make you win teh internets. It makes you look like you're fourteen.

-Username17

[K]

The claim that Warhammer stole a version of elves from Tolkien and didn't just steal a single name is actually irrelevant because it still means that they didn't use the word Elves. They made that choice because the Eldar of Warhammer barely resemble the idea of elves that people have and people would have not liked it if they'd called them elves.

Stop being deliberately contrarion. The Warhammer Eldar are space elves. The Warhammer Orks are space orcs. That is what they are. That is what they have always been. That is why the fucking "High Elves" of Warhammer Fantasy use some of the same models as the "Eldar" of 40k. That is why the fucking "Orcs and Goblins" of Warhammer Fantasy use some of the same models as the "Orks" of 40k.

You get absolutely zero points claiming that the Eldar aren't Elves. For fuck's sake Eldar is a word for Elves. And not just in one or two sources.

Just fucking stop it. You're arguing for the sake of arguing and making yourslef look really juvenile. Claiming that you win all teh internets because someone else didn't say Simon Says or some similar sophistry doesn't actually make you win teh internets. It makes you look like you're fourteen.

-Username17

So why didn't they call them Elves? Why did they chose an old word for Elves that probably only 1/100 gaming enthusiasts would recognize instead of using the word that 100/100 would recognize? Why didn't they chose a race name that was already in their extended universe?

That's because the word "elves" is recognized. It comes with a set of assumptions, and people are upset when those assumptions are not followed.

And yes, Eldar are basically space-themed elves from the fantasy Warhammer, but they are actually better because they have a better name with almost no baggage. You can toss in shit like robots with soul crystals into the Eldar army and no one is saying "fuck no, elves don't play with undead ghost shit." There are no calls to update fantasy armies to 40K. You can change up some of the gods and it works.

That's the point.

Lazy name design is kind of a big problem in RPGs. 4e had great names for powers that didn't feel great at all. DnD 3.x had things like "True Necromancers" that were actually shitty at necromancy and people were upset. Planescape puts Balors into Sigil bars and suddenly everyone notices that Balors aren't scary any more and are just another forehead alien.

[Ancient History]

I had this argument with a friend of mine that's writing a book on the history of necromancy - a lot of the tropes we associate with necromancy are fairly recent literary developments. Straight up divination through the dead you can trace back to the witch of Endor in the Old Testament and the nekromanteion of the Greeks in the Odyssey and shit, but raising the dead and animating corpses and that kind of thing - all the trappings that we associate today with "necromancy" - didn't really start to come together until the dawn of modern fantasy.

Which largely comes about because of the very weird way Western culture deals with "magic" in religion and culture over the last several centuries, with some people trying to argue "good" magic and "bad" magic, white and black, left-hand path and right-hand path, high magic and low magic...and the other side that equates magic with evil, full stop. Modern moral relativists usually argue that magic, like technology, is a morally neutral force - and, indeed, you can drag Star Wars and the space wizards into this as a good example. Much ink has been spilled over what qualifies as Light Side versus Dark Side with the Force, mostly because force lightning is badass and Force-sensitive individuals appear to be able to switch teams pretty easily. But, helpfully, Team Evil has a penchant for black robes.

[K]

. But, helpfully, Team Evil has a penchant for black robes.

The fucked up eye-color change is a pretty good symbol for Star Wars team change what with eyes being often-used symbols for souls. You pretty much know that when young Vader gets his new eyes that he's past flirting with Dark Side and he's all in.



That's basically how symbols are used in stories. Stories that don't use symbolism feel flat and shallow.

[Omegonthesane]

The claim that Warhammer stole a version of elves from Tolkien and didn't just steal a single name is actually irrelevant because it still means that they didn't use the word Elves. They made that choice because the Eldar of Warhammer barely resemble the idea of elves that people have and people would have not liked it if they'd called them elves.

Stop being deliberately contrarion. The Warhammer Eldar are space elves. The Warhammer Orks are space orcs. That is what they are. That is what they have always been. That is why the fucking "High Elves" of Warhammer Fantasy use some of the same models as the "Eldar" of 40k. That is why the fucking "Orcs and Goblins" of Warhammer Fantasy use some of the same models as the "Orks" of 40k.

You get absolutely zero points claiming that the Eldar aren't Elves. For fuck's sake Eldar is a word for Elves. And not just in one or two sources.

Just fucking stop it. You're arguing for the sake of arguing and making yourslef look really juvenile. Claiming that you win all teh internets because someone else didn't say Simon Says or some similar sophistry doesn't actually make you win teh internets. It makes you look like you're fourteen.

-Username17

So why didn't they call them Elves? Why did they chose an old word for Elves that probably only 1/100 gaming enthusiasts would recognize instead of using the word that 100/100 would recognize? Why didn't they chose a race name that was already in their extended universe?

That's because the word "elves" is recognized. It comes with a set of assumptions, and people are upset when those assumptions are not followed.

And yes, Eldar are basically space-themed elves from the fantasy Warhammer, but they are actually better because they have a better name with almost no baggage. You can toss in shit like robots with soul crystals into the Eldar army and no one is saying "fuck no, elves don't play with undead ghost shit." There are no calls to update fantasy armies to 40K. You can change up some of the gods and it works.

That's the point.

Lazy name design is kind of a big problem in RPGs. 4e had great names for powers that didn't feel great at all. DnD 3.x had things like "True Necromancers" that were actually shitty at necromancy and people were upset. Planescape puts Balors into Sigil bars and suddenly everyone notices that Balors aren't scary any more and are just another forehead alien.

Are you really saying that the True Necromancer was despised because the name "True Necromancer" was given to a class that was then intentionally not very good at necromancy, rather than because - whatever its fucking name - it was shitty shit? Are you really giving WotC's design ability that much credit that they could do it deliberately, and are you really assigning them that much malice that they intended for the True Necromancer to not be the best necromancer?

The fact is, Baelnorns and Archliches were not lame because they flouted your petty demand that Necromancy secretly be replaced with Evilmancy - they were lame because they ACQUIESCED to that demand. Because faced with a design brief of "liches who choose other than to be total dickwads" the design team were too cowardly to follow through and admit that since these things look like liches and quack like liches they should be called fucking liches. Likewise - as is pointed out in your own Tome of Necromancy, the one already linked in this thread, the one where your name appears as a design credit - the Deathless in Book of Endocrine Diseases were lame because Ghosts (Alignment: Any) already existed and were already undead so could already be good undead.

[K]

Are you really saying that the True Necromancer was despised because the name "True Necromancer" was given to a class that was then intentionally not very good at necromancy, rather than because - whatever its fucking name - it was shitty shit? Are you really giving WotC's design ability that much credit that they could do it deliberately, and are you really assigning them that much malice that they intended for the True Necromancer to not be the best necromancer?

There are lots of shitty necromancer PrCs that don't draw any hate at all, but the True Necromancer does get hate because people are angry that it's not the best necromancer like the name implies. It was a design mistake on the part of the writing team to not give it a name that actually fits the mechanics and expectations of the audience.

If they'd called it the Mystery Necromancer, it would have been completely forgettable.

The fact is, Baelnorns and Archliches were not lame because they flouted your petty demand that Necromancy secretly be replaced with Evilmancy - they were lame because they ACQUIESCED to that demand. Because faced with a design brief of "liches who choose other than to be total dickwads" the design team were too cowardly to follow through and admit that since these things look like liches and quack like liches they should be called fucking liches. ...

First, I've never demanded that Necromancy be all evil. I've just demanded that anything that calls itself Necromancy actually fit somewhat into what RPG players expect when they hear that word. For example, if there is undead-raising in your game, I'd expect it to be Necromancy and not Aeromancy.

By the same token, I expect a spellcaster with death powers to not be sitting in the middle of vibrant gardens and bustling cities in the same way that I'd expect an ice-mage to not live in a volcano.

Second, when did Archliches not have the word "lich" right in the name? Compound words, anyone?

Third, Baelnorn and archliches have different names not because of issues with undead and alignment, but because in DnD every monster with different powers gets a new name. This is why there are 100+ entries for true dragons with only slightly different advancement charts and ability sets and colors.

[schpeelah]

So there is a very important difference between Eldar and Elves because it's a different word, but the difference between Liches and Archliches/Baelnorns is not important?


Now if I'm encountering a necromancer in a vibrant garden I would rather expect the garden to be creepy in some way. The presence of a necromancer draining the trees could be it if it's a surprise and the results of draining are visible and appropriately shocking, especially if the necromancer is evil. If it's known in advance, the plants should themselves be unnatural, such as being meaty, with animal organs, moving and screaming sometimes. Bred and modified for maximum lifeforce.

I could very much see an ice mage living in a volcano. A good guy ice mage could be devoting his time to keeping the volcano slumbering, an evil one could be imprisoned there.

[Shady314]

I could very much see an ice mage living in a volcano. A good guy ice mage could be devoting his time to keeping the volcano slumbering, an evil one could be imprisoned there.

The point being while players may have expectations it is usually defying expectations that creates something memorable and it's ridiculous to argue ever going against the norm is somehow wrong to do.

The ice mage is just that badass and the GM wishes to impress that on the players. The ice mage does not live alone. It is one of the only places the ice mage can ever again feel warmth. The volcano is dormant. Maybe because of the mage as you say. In that same vein it's a big fuck you to the god of fire or some rival of the ice mage. Ice mage=all ice all the time is fucking cartoonish. Just like an all evil all the time for the lulz necromancer whether players expect it or not.

Ice mage found in the middle of their wintry wonderland is bog standard fantasy that takes no thought and is boring after the first time you see it.

[K]

So there is a very important difference between Eldar and Elves because it's a different word, but the difference between Liches and Archliches/Baelnorns is not important?

Things with different names are different. I'm not sure what your question is here.

Archliches and Baelnorns have different names because they have different powers from liches and thus follow the DnD convention of getting a new name and write-up, not because they are the "good undead" or "good liches."

Now if I'm encountering a necromancer in a vibrant garden I would rather expect the garden to be creepy in some way. The presence of a necromancer draining the trees could be it if it's a surprise and the results of draining are visible and appropriately shocking, especially if the necromancer is evil. If it's known in advance, the plants should themselves be unnatural, such as being meaty, with animal organs, moving and screaming sometimes. Bred and modified for maximum lifeforce.

That would be appropriate, and is exactly the opposite of what was proposed and was why I objected.

Remember that this argument started pages ago when I said that a version of necromancy that was all about life-draining should sicken the trees and maybe spread plague to the cities where these liches were feeding because that was good storytelling.

I could very much see an ice mage living in a volcano. A good guy ice mage could be devoting his time to keeping the volcano slumbering, an evil one could be imprisoned there.

Sure, but all ice mages would not live in volcanoes because that would be stupid, right? Your examples are clearly meant to be exceptions because they are dramatically interesting as exceptions and just lame as common circumstances.

[deaddmwalking]

Necromancy, at best, is the Dirty Harry of the magic world. Even if it's on the side of right, the methods are suspect. Necromancers shouldn't be 'kill on sight' evil but they're likely to be bad guys.

There's definitely room for a KoS type of magic. In the heartbreaker we use, Abyssal Sorcery is the 'KoS' magic - lots of people use necromancy in greater or lesser degrees. But people that prefer necromancy tend to skew pretty strongly toward evil.

Regarding the use of corpses as simple tools - that's kind of the point. A necromancer disregards the cultural attachment applied to the dead and is willing to take a strict utilitarian view. Even if it's not 'evil', it's not something most people are going to be comfortable with. Any call to 'the system' not defining the creation of undead as 'torturing the souls so used' doesn't really matter - for stupid reasons 'the system' says that increasing negative energy is inherently evil. Animate Dead has the Evil Descriptor. Good necromancers raising skeletons to deal with a greater evil aren't white hats.

But that's really a useful position. Necromancy isn't all evil (especially if it includes healing magic as it did in some editions), so we're not at 'Kill on Sight', but we're in a morally ambiguous area. There are lots of necromancy spells that aren't evil, including control undead. From a rules standpoint, there's pretty clear support for using undead to be acceptable, but creating undead is 'evil'.

[K]

Ice mage found in the middle of their wintry wonderland is bog standard fantasy that takes no thought and is boring after the first time you see it.

I'd probably argue that "ice mage in a random place for no reason" is actually the bog standard fantasy.

As for your argument that ice mages shouldn't use ice, I don't have anything to say to that because it makes no sense. If you don't want ice mages who use ice all the time, then you just have "mages."

[Prak]

There's no fucking good reason for necromancy to be morally suspect, though. "Guy wasn't using it anymore, so I recycled it." No one would say that a form of golemancy that centered around animating discarded clothing is squicky and should almost always be evil and unhealthy, so why are people saying it should be when you swap clothes out for bones? Sure, zombies might spread disease, ghouls spread disease, they're both made of rotting flesh, but no one expect Baron Van Strahd to be a walking plague vector, or drain life from everyone around for miles, and there's no reason for properly cleaned skeletons to do so.

edit- as to "well, people won't be comfortable with it"-
There are cities I could go to where my having crazy ball slapping sex with five dudes in the privacy of a hotel room is something the majority of people around won't be comfortable with. Society's comfort with something is not a valid reason to call it "evil," unless you're willing to define "evil" as "things society doesn't like" which completely removes any point behind evil being a thing.

[Shady314]

I'd probably argue that "ice mage in a random place for no reason" is actually the bog standard fantasy.

Then youre defeating your own argument because you apparently have different expectations from me for where a stereotypical ice mage should live.
It's as if symbols do NOT have universal meanings an author must adhere to for quality writing.

People will not only accept alternative interpretations but often love them so long as the alternative is presented in a compelling manner. Hades wasn't usually a villain. Then he got correlated with Satan and then he was a villain a lot. But not always and people do not automatically hate every version of Hades where he is not a villain any more than they love every version where is.

As for your argument that ice mages shouldn't use ice, I don't have anything to say to that because it makes no sense. If you don't want ice mages who use ice all the time, then you just have "mages."

You know very fucking well I never said this and if you have to resort to strawmen then you know youre wrong. I said they didn't have to make their entire existence revolve around fucking frozen water which should be obvious for good storytelling. To not do so is cartoonish and one dimensional. At best it's a running gag.

Where and how an ice mage should live is up to the author. The ice mage could live down the street in a nice two bedroom house. It depends on what an ice mage IS in that world.

Remember that this argument started pages ago when I said that a version of necromancy that was all about life-draining should sicken the trees and maybe spread plague to the cities where these liches were feeding because that was good storytelling

Writing the same evil necromancer someone has seen one thousand times before is usually the opposite of good storytelling. If the author's version of necromancy drains life nothing there inherently demands the life draining be indiscriminate. You've been holding up the way you would write it as the only good way to do it.

[Ancient History]

There's no fucking good reason for necromancy to be morally suspect, though.

Sure there is. If the dead are taboo, if it violates popular social mores on respecting the dead, if it violates beliefs on whether or not the soul can rest in your cosmology/religion if you defile its corpse, on the sacredness of souls or life itself, if necromantic powers are seen as coming from infernal or evil sources, if the practice of necromancy comes with or is associated with certain taboos or consequences (bad luck, cannibalism, diseases like leprosy or syphilis, madness, etc.), if it increases the amount of entropy in the universe, it's illegal in this kingdom, etc.

Not, yes I know a lot of these are ethical or even legal, but just to throw the traditional arguments out there. And you can see that in a lot of fictional necromancers. Hell, look at Necromancy in Warhammer Fantasy.

At bare minimum, you have the fact that most people are unnerved at the sight of an animated corpse, and might be further disgusted or upset if it was once a friend, relative, or loved one.

[Prak]

Sorry, I should have said "to have to be morally suspect." My bad on forming words.

[erik]

"The Eldar are those who accepted the summons. Their name, literally Star People, was given to them by Oromë in their own language."

The claim that Warhammer stole a version of elves from Tolkien and didn't just steal a single name is actually irrelevant because it still means that they didn't use the word Elves.

They used a name of a tribe of elves whose name meant the star people. It's fucking space elves.

Your argument is like "Those aren't humans, they're Americans!"*

I don't even

*okay, some people might agree with the validity of that statement

If you can find examples of so-called necromancy in popular media that fit how you want to use it, then you aren't being a lazy fuck for using it in that manner with that name.

I'm not going to let you pretend to be ignorant any more.

Thank god for that. A burden is lifted!

You know that necromancy has a certain set of assumptions because you've consumed hundreds and maybe thousands of computer games, fantasy novels, movies, comics and other pieces of media like everyone who has ever seriously posted on am RPG forum. Pretending that there is no common canon that RPG players are a part of is pathetic trolling.

My point is that there is a huge swath of canon of necromancy that goes from ghost whisperers to zombie lords to bone throwing diviners, and so on. They all fit under the umbrella.

You are the one who wants a restricted interpretation of necromancy that ignores plenty of popular sources. I don't know how you're trying to use this argument against me when it is the argument I already made against your stance.

[OgreBattle]

Dealing with corpses is often taboo. Dealing with spirits is often a good guy thing though.

Aragorn has his ghost army.
Conan is saved by a valkyrie.
Luke communes with the dead for advice all the time.

I figure where Necromancy is seen as evil is 'consent'. Forcibly raising the dead, defiling tombs and all that while Luke, Conan, and Aragorn are aided by the willing dead. Even in Warhammer Fantasy there is a distinction between the Tomb Kings use of willing undead servants vs Vampire Counts defiling graves and cursing defeated enemies to serve them.

You could say it's an issue of 'consent', and going down that route spells like 'charm person' are pretty morally reprehensible.

[Seerow]

Dealing with corpses is often taboo. Dealing with spirits is often a good guy thing though.

Aragorn has his ghost army.
Conan is saved by a valkyrie.
Luke communes with the dead for advice all the time.

I figure where Necromancy is seen as evil is 'consent'. Forcibly raising the dead, defiling tombs and all that while Luke, Conan, and Aragorn are aided by the willing dead. Even in Warhammer Fantasy there is a distinction between the Tomb Kings use of willing undead servants vs Vampire Counts defiling graves and cursing defeated enemies to serve them.

You could say it's an issue of 'consent', and going down that route spells like 'charm person' are pretty morally reprehensible.

In the Dresden Files all of the ghost/spirit talking and aid stuff gets chalked up to a discipline called Ectomancy, which is considered a distinct skillset from Necromancy and is considered 'bad guy' magic.

That said, Dresden Files has a distinct category of "Black Magic" which corrupts the soul of anyone who uses it. Despite this, Necromancy doesn't actually seem to fall under that, since creating Zombies is totally legal as long as they are not human zombies. I am not sure if this is because Necromancy isn't actually black magic, or if because using it on humans causes soul corruption, or just because Plot demanded we have our Hero ride into battle on a zombie T-Rex against a bunch of necromancers in climax of the book.

[Grek]

The Laws of Magic in Dresden Files exist for political reasons, not because the things they forbid are inherently corrupting. Lots of the things they forbid ARE inherently corrupting, but that's not why they're forbidden. In particular, Necromancy on humans is banned because the ability to restore the dead to life would give too much political power to individual wizards wanting to use immortality as a political bribe. Ditto for time travel, mind control, overt magical murders, turning people into newts and a couple other things. They're banned because that's the list of overtly magical routes to political power over muggles, not because they're an exhaustive list of what will make you turn Evil.

[erik]

I considered using Dresden Files as an example, but it's a weird case and probably helps no one.

The ectomancy vs. necromancy mostly just sounds like ectomancy is necromancy that the Wardens (probably) won't kill you for. Just like the raising of non-human zombies. Ectomancy is respectful necromancy, getting the effectively same results as necromancy but good and wholesome. Because.

It isn't just that necromancy does bad things to casters, plenty of magic is reputed to do bad things to casters. A fair bit of magic when used on people causes soul corruption... because reasons. Except when it doesn't.

Grek. They specifically say that you shouldn't use those badtouch magics because it will fuck you up and make you do it more and become evil. Children are executed because they have become fucked up in exactly that manner and are too far gone to bring back to sanity.

Wizards don't have rules against using magic to manipulate muggle world and becoming super wealthy. They just have rules (guidelines?) against getting outed, which aren't as serious as the laws of magic. They give a nod to that many wizards wind up being quite well off due to their magical aptitude in fact and the White Council has no problem with this.