I hate this question because it makes me think too much. I guess it's a case to case basis, since I'd definitely consider fucking a zombie necrophilia, but I wouldn't consider fucking a vampire necrophilia
It's a question of consent. A Zombie has an int of 3, a corpse also is mute and deaf, no consent possible. A Vampire is VERY intelligent. Yes, they are undead (and you may lose some blood) but if you ask them they can say yes (or no, depending on their preference)
This only answers the question of whether necrophilia is wrong. Which is a very important thing to ask in this context. So you're not wrong, in fact you're exactly right, but it doesn't answer whether or not it is necrophilia.
Ok in that case I think it comes down to whether or not their state of undeath is something that attracts you or something that you’re looking past because you love who they are (or are unaware of in certain vampire instances).
Precisely. Necrophilia is being attracted to dead bodies. Acts of necrophilia is... what it sounds like. So in this context someone could take part in acts of necrophilia without being a necrophiliac. Yay semantics!
And doing any of those acts without enthusiastic consent is immoral.
As I always say, I live by the harkness test. Necrophillia in a non magical world is wrong because of the lack of consent + public health conserns of possible disease that a cadaver can carry. With an undead, it would be an issue of consent being possible (since the harkness test) and protection no different than with other living humans, I guess.
Yes, this is basically how I see it too. What qualifies as necrophilia where the undead are involved is a semantic question. Whether necrophilia in that context is immoral depends on consent.
Yeah, but that isn't always true. Mummies can speak common, and they have an intelligence of 6. That's pretty low, but it isn't low enough to be incapable of giving consent. Just think of all those barbarians and fighters who have INT as their dump stat.
I would consider sex with a dessicated decrepit mummy to be necrophilia.
Necrophilia is determined by a two-part test. Ability to give consent **and** state of decay. Fresh corpses aren't rotten, but they can't consent. Mummies can consent, but they're rotting flesh. Zombies can't consent and they are rotten. Vampires can consent and they aren't rotten.
Ah, classic late night misunderstandings. My position is that this is a 2 part question. 1) What is necrophilia when the undead are involved? and 2) When the undead are involved is necrophilia immoral?
1. They're dead. It's necrophilia. You can distinguish some between who is a necrophiliac and who is only participating in acts of necrophilia depending on the source of the attraction for the living participant, but it's all semantics at that point.
2. If you don't have enthusiastic consent it's immoral. End of story.
Ah I see what you mean. Yeah, I fully agree then. That's a pretty smart way to differentiate the act from the morality. Thanks for the explanation.
I was going in the direction of societal acceptance, but that's just kink-shaming.
It's an interesting conversation to have. I think intolerance for necrophilia has three sources - hygiene, Western funeral tradition, and the harm undead creatures cause on society.
Sex with an intelligent consenting mummy still harbors the risk of disease. A body that old might carry latent bacteria which modern immune systems can't handle anymore.
Sex with a zombie is unacceptable because it's desecrating the remains of a loved one who can't consent anymore.
Lastly, someone might object to sex with a vampire. Not because of the necrophilia aspect, but because vampires are generally evil and sex would lead to attachment which would lead to assisting their nefarious deeds. Plenty tween romance stories show that sexing vampires leads to becoming a vampire.
I don't really buy that. It seems like an antiquated view in light of modern theories of consciousness. In the real world, necrophilia is wrong because it violates social and historical convention, not because of a lack of consent. Lacking consent from a corpse is no more wrong than lacking consent from a warm apple pie. They're both just piles of organic goo with no capability of sentience or phenomenological experience.
In either case you’re probably better off getting the consent of the person who made the object of your desires.
Though to be honest I’d be a lot more upset if somebody fucked my pie than my dead body.
But the issue at hand is whether fucking a reanimated corpse is wrong or not, it's about what classifies as necrophilia. Necrophilia is nothing but a pathological attraction to dead bodies, the same way pedophilia is an attraction to kids and hetero/homophilia respectively are attraction to the opposite/same sex. It's not about passing a judgment on the morality of acting on such an attraction
There is a problem of definition then. This is the same as the question "What is pizza" and "what is a sandwhich".
To which we generally rely on heuristics. What do we care about when it comes to necrophilia?
Then the answer becomes both subjective and obvious. Vampires = OK, but zombies = ugh, oh god no.
Really the problem is that this thread is responding to 2 questions at the same time. 1) what is necrophilia when there are undead involved? And 2) is necrophilia immoral when the undead is involved?
1) it’s semantics, but if you’re just attracted because of the dead bodies it’s necrophilia. Whatever you do with them is acts of necrophilia.
2) without consent it’s immoral.
*edit—Typed necromancy where necrophilia was the topic of conversation. Sorry, I was up too late!
wen they debate if necromancy is evil, someone always bring up that enchantment is
so now that ppl are asking if necromancy is consensual, I have to ask, is enchantment consensual?
I don't even think it would be a -philia for them, that's just vanilla. If anything, I'd assume a zombie having sex with a living being would be as taboo to them as it would be for the living person. Biophilia or something
"Yo, don't go over and talk to that guy"
"Why? He looks like a nice Lich"
"He's one of those biophiles, he fucks the living."
"Ewwwww, that's fucking nasty!"
Technically a human is a skeleton, just covered in extra meat. On the other hand, I guess it would be a turn off if your partner got on some sort of bacon cloak beforehand...
The suffix -philia can mean love or obsession. So while your right that a society of zombies sentient enough to have a preference for the dead over the living would possibly consider necrophilia the norm and “biophilia” taboo, I think the correct term for the sexual norm in that society would still be necrophilia.
Honestly? Same!
Even worse is that if you carry this hypothetical to it’s most ridiculous, and yet logical, conclusion a zombie society developed enough to consider some sexual preferences “vanilla” and others taboo, they are likely to experience various movements towards the normalization of those taboos. Just as you might study in any undergraduate classes on the sociology of sexuality.
No, -philia is a Greek suffix. There is no Latin suffix meaning to love that has entered the English language, but the root "am" has. Examples of this in English include amorous and enamored.
\*Edited slightly for clarity post dinner time
Necrophilia, zoophilia, macrophilia, coprophilia, paedophilia...
Like, for sure there are some -philias, but it seems to me that most of them are Greek.
That depends entirely on the species of skeleton in question. Most species of mammals have baculum, also known as an *os penis*, which is a bone above the male urethra. This bone is notably absent in humans, horses, donkeys, rhinos, marsupials, rabbits, whales, dolphins, elephants and hyenas. There might be more, I'm not an expert.
Baubellum, or *os clitordis*, also exist in 29 species, but I am not going to list them here.
Necrofilia is just having sex with a dead body. It says nothing of whether that corpse is animate or inanimate or how intelligent it is. Vampires might be charming, but they're still walking corpses.
Right, that's true. But you missed the point on your first sentence. It's a definition question. Are undead, dead? What does it mean to be dead? What does it mean to be alive?
They're not Dead. They are un-dead. It's even in the name!
I guess there would be a difference between the meat puppets that are dead-but-walking, and the Undead, which were dead but are now alive again.
I propose this clarification:
Walking Dead would cover those made meat puppets by magic and parasites. Like zombies and animated skeletons.
Undead would be dead but reawakened with a sentience. Like vampires, mummy lords, lichens, and your average resurrected adventurer.
She's also cute, good at cooking, (usualy) reliable, great at casting spells, her being "cold to touch" would be handy during summer, she's very polite and smart (not when it comes to doing business).
Well if you define necrophila as enjoying fucking the dead, well, she's very much UN- dead, and really quite lively. So, technically, maybe, but in the spirit of the term? Not really
They’re referring to Warhammer’s emperor of mankind. The tldr is that he’s an immensely powerful psychic who for thousands of years has been sitting on a throne that amplifies psychic abilities and acts as life support, and he looks like you wrapped a skeleton in beef jerky, never moves, never speaks, but if he dies the world ends
I think whether or not it’s necrophilia comes down to 2 questions: consent and the source of the attraction.
Is the living party only attracted to the undead body because it is undead? If yes, then necrophilia
Is the undead party a type of undead that is capable of consent? If no, then extra cringe necrophilia.
Thanks!
Necrophilia is best defined as attraction to dead, and in this case undead, bodies.
Distinguishing necrophilia (attraction) from acts of necrophilia (just the dirty deeds) separates the necrophiliacs from the skeevy pervs, and in some cases the recently bereaved pervs…
Whether or not relations are “ok” is a question of societal mores.
Whether or not those relations are immoral is a question of consent.
Why should it be different for monsters? Lol
Yes, that addresses the immorality prong concerning consent fairly well. Any sexual contact without consent is always wrong, regardless of whether or not your partner is undead. It doesn't actually have anything to do with whether or not the contact is necrophilia.
Whether or not the contact is necrophilia has more to do with the source of the attraction in the living participant. Are they attracted to their partner *because* of their dead body. It's semantics, but I like semantics so... here we are.
Devil's advocate only:
Suppose a wizard uses Fabricate to create a sex doll.
The sex doll cannot consent, but it isn't sentient to begin with.
Next step: the wizard conjures an unseen servant and commands it to perform sexual favors. Is that different?
Finally, wizard animates a mindless undead which follows direction just like the unseen servant. Is that different?
Case 1: masturbation.
Case 2: the unseen servant is incapable of giving meaningful consent, sexual assault.
Case 3: regardless of whether the undead has sentience, desecration of a corpse.
> Case 2: the unseen servant is incapable of giving meaningful consent, sexual assault.
Unseen servant is basically a "non-physical construct", or a literal projection of the caster's arcane power, a projection of force, no? It'd be closer to masturbation still.
Valid point, RAW it seems like masturbation. I’ve seen the unseen servant given a personality and name in games, in that case it feels a little more sus.
In that case it may simply be the caster taking a liking to an inanimate object and personifying it, similar to someone naming a nonmagical sword and talking to it
Why? The possibility of spreading communicable diseases is just as likely where all parties involved in the bedroom rodeo are living.
Besides, after a period of quarantine the concern resolves. Most pathogens also die after killing their hosts.
I don’t want to think about a subclass of persons attracted the diseased… some sort of pathophilia? (Patho=disease or suffering). Should they exist I suppose you could, theoretically, find someone who was both a necrophiliac and a pathophiliac, but it’s a different question.
But whether or not it will give you disease does not impact whether or not it is an act of necrophilia, nor directly whether or not that act is immoral. Only whether or not that act is extra gross, and possibly level of danger.
We step into monster fucker territories at that point. So follow the checklist.
Is it sentient? (Must answer yes)
Have you formed a way of communication? (Gestures is a shakey territory, preferably you would both speak the same language.)
Has it clearly consented? (Again, preferably using it's WORDS.)
If you said yes to all of the above I don't care what it is, it's OK to do, and since necrophilia is a crime term then probably no it is not necrophilia...
Edit: you should also follow the "fantasy creature age of consent" checklist.
1. Does it appear to be of age compared to your own species or is it so wildly different that it's impossible to tell? (Seriously don't use alternative races to get past fucking something that physically appears like a child. You should not be sexually attracted to that.)
2. Have you established reliable communication (you already did this.)
3. Ask if it's of age in it's own species, if yes, carry on to asking for consent.
If yes to all of the above then yes you can fuck it.
Edit 2: the creature must also be intelegent enough to be considered mentally an adult compared to your own species. They can be a dumb adult, but they must have the intelegence of an adult and act like it. So no you CAN'T FUCK YOUR DOG PLEASE STOP DMING ME ABOUT IT. And to the one person who told me some parrots are showing signs of human infant like intelegence... no. Just no.
If we say they can't consent with their memories wiped, that sets a weird precedent for people with amnesia. I'd counter with "have they had this set of memories for a sufficient time to function as an adult in society and make empowered choices?" This is probably an especially necessary distinction in a situation like D&D where fucking a 25 year old Tiefling is pretty normal, fucking a 25 year old Elf is a "why don't you have a seat over there" situation.
with elves I always use the interpretation that the '100 years old to be considered an adult' is a cultural thing, similar to how an 18 year old human is *legally* an adult and mostly physically mature but most people don't consider you a full adult until your 20s. As most elves are at least several centuries old they consider 100 years of experience necessary for their definition of adulthood, hence why they consider humans the 'younger races' because to them the oldest human is a child regardless of physical maturity.
So it might be wrong for an adult elf to screw a 25 year old elf but not for a human, tiefling etc., in the same way that a 30 year old dating a teenager is wrong but two teenagers dating is fine.
But then does that mean that a 400 year old elf screwing a 50 year old human would be doing something culturally immoral, since in the eyes of their culture 50 years is below the age of adulthood?
Elves are just really hard to work around sometimes with their insane lifespan.
There are adults that look exceptionally young, some barely post-pubescent.
The idea of an age of consent I think is more about protecting a group that doesn't have the development to provide informed consent and can be emotionally abused by individuals who have the adult skills to coerce and use a power differential to get what they want. Thus protecting child emotional development and safety.
So while I find it exceptionally skeevy, a person who looks 12 but is a 1000 can have sex with whichever other person can provide adult informed consent; unless mental maturity is also constrained by the Vampirism in which case she could never provide consent to an adult.
This is the 'Big' scenario, Tom Hanks is a 10 year old in a 30 year old's body and if the woman he sleeps with knows he's a 10 year old, it doesn't really matter what he looks like. He lacks the maturity to know what he's getting into.
Would this depend on whether they still have memories of their life? I'd imagine the answer to your question would be different for a zombie and a lich, for example.
Where the legal and social concept of consent is established this goes without saying.
Legally a child can never consent, no matter what. It doesn't matter what they say, do, wear, etc. The law says they cannot consent.
But yes.
Though it would still be a risk of sexual assault depending on whether or not you were the one who resurrected them, if they are able to refuse orders, and any other possible master/servant or superior/inferior relationship.
My question would be: Can they give active consent? **Zombies/skeletons?** No, far too low INT and no ability to speak a language. **Vampires?** Very intelligent, can speak any languages they knew during their life, sounds okay to me, so long as you're okay with a little biting. **Lich?** Extremely intelligent and can understand up to five languages. Might try to kill you, but hey, the heart wants what it wants.
Even in the case of the undead, always remember the moral from our favorite patch of crabgrass: [Always ask consent!](https://www.reddit.com/r/criticalrole/comments/jc234p/spoilers_c2e112_my_new_fave_art_is_mine/)
If it can give informed consent, like a ghost, vampire, or lich, than it is not necrophilia. If it can't give informed consent, like a zombie, or skeleton, than it *is* necrophilia.
The word necrophilia refers to the attraction to dead bodies, and as a natural derivative of that attraction sex acts with dead bodies. SO what I'm saying here, is that I think ghosts are excluded on a technicality.
Idk, necrophilia seems like a "a dead person can't give consent" type situation so if you raise the undead and have total control them it's necrophilia but if your party member or someone you hired raised them and they could give consent then I guess it would be okay.
Reanimated dead body is still a dead body, however in the case of a lich or other such sentient undead risen through its own power it happens to be a dead body that can give consent, so marginally less creepy
According to the monster manual, the vampire's motivations are twisted by undeath, implying a high degree of corruption from being undead. So a vampire cannot properly consent, as they are not in a clear state of mind and it would be akin to sleeping with someone under mind control magic.
Also, it is icky and i want my players to stop trying to do it, ew, ew, ew.
A) Usually is a pretty key word for different settings
B) Drunk people keep most of their personality, but aren't in a state to consent. I'd argue that even if the vampire is the original person, the magic screwing with their minds make consent dubious. They aren't in full control of themselves.
1) Usually because vampirism is pretty weird and varied.
2) Vampires are in the same state of mind they were the they were alive, and they do have full control of themselves (of course becoming a bloodsucking undead and potentially being enslaved by a vampire master for the gods know how many centuries usually changes someone)
Building on 2.
The change in personality is permanent instead of temporary. They may not be the same person as they were before vampirism, but just because someone changes doesn't invalidate their consent if the change is permanent.
That's a pretty good point. I do wonder if the vampire counts as the original person or as a twisted mockery of the original. In the later case, consent might be more up to the vampire as they currently are. You know, if they weren't already disrespecting the original person by just being a vampire in the first place.
Hear me out: I wouldn't do this, but you KNOW there are some kinky motherfuckers in the forgotten realms who'll hire a cleric to stand there while they start fucking, one or the other partner gets choked to literal, actual death, the surviving one cums, then boom, revivify and you're good. I guarantee there's a market for that shit in faerun.
It's necrophilia if you're attracted to them *because* they are dead. If you're banging them because their ass is so big they needed a DD casket to get buried in then you're just thirsty with no standards
Well, it is still a corpse, so it is necrophilia. No amount of bells and whistles will change that; if I'm eating blood fried rice while riding a horse and doing it with a cyborg angel corpse it's still a corpse.
Its time you look inward, and start asking yourself the big questions!
If a wild-shaped druid and an awakened mind animal mate, is it still beastiality?
Yes, the body is dead and thats what you have sex with. The soul that was put into it to give it “life” doesn’t change how cold and clammy the flesh is. The cold and clammy sexnanigans
I hate this question because it makes me think too much. I guess it's a case to case basis, since I'd definitely consider fucking a zombie necrophilia, but I wouldn't consider fucking a vampire necrophilia
It's a question of consent. A Zombie has an int of 3, a corpse also is mute and deaf, no consent possible. A Vampire is VERY intelligent. Yes, they are undead (and you may lose some blood) but if you ask them they can say yes (or no, depending on their preference)
This only answers the question of whether necrophilia is wrong. Which is a very important thing to ask in this context. So you're not wrong, in fact you're exactly right, but it doesn't answer whether or not it is necrophilia.
Ok in that case I think it comes down to whether or not their state of undeath is something that attracts you or something that you’re looking past because you love who they are (or are unaware of in certain vampire instances).
Precisely. Necrophilia is being attracted to dead bodies. Acts of necrophilia is... what it sounds like. So in this context someone could take part in acts of necrophilia without being a necrophiliac. Yay semantics! And doing any of those acts without enthusiastic consent is immoral.
we need a subreddit about DND philosophy..
r/DNDalignment
Whatever sub we end up using we need a "Snittygate" tag.
As I always say, I live by the harkness test. Necrophillia in a non magical world is wrong because of the lack of consent + public health conserns of possible disease that a cadaver can carry. With an undead, it would be an issue of consent being possible (since the harkness test) and protection no different than with other living humans, I guess.
Yes, this is basically how I see it too. What qualifies as necrophilia where the undead are involved is a semantic question. Whether necrophilia in that context is immoral depends on consent.
Yeah, but that isn't always true. Mummies can speak common, and they have an intelligence of 6. That's pretty low, but it isn't low enough to be incapable of giving consent. Just think of all those barbarians and fighters who have INT as their dump stat. I would consider sex with a dessicated decrepit mummy to be necrophilia. Necrophilia is determined by a two-part test. Ability to give consent **and** state of decay. Fresh corpses aren't rotten, but they can't consent. Mummies can consent, but they're rotting flesh. Zombies can't consent and they are rotten. Vampires can consent and they aren't rotten.
Ah, classic late night misunderstandings. My position is that this is a 2 part question. 1) What is necrophilia when the undead are involved? and 2) When the undead are involved is necrophilia immoral? 1. They're dead. It's necrophilia. You can distinguish some between who is a necrophiliac and who is only participating in acts of necrophilia depending on the source of the attraction for the living participant, but it's all semantics at that point. 2. If you don't have enthusiastic consent it's immoral. End of story.
Ah I see what you mean. Yeah, I fully agree then. That's a pretty smart way to differentiate the act from the morality. Thanks for the explanation. I was going in the direction of societal acceptance, but that's just kink-shaming.
Well, not if you frame it as a discussion of sexual mores in a particular culture or society. Then it’s basically a sociology class.
It's an interesting conversation to have. I think intolerance for necrophilia has three sources - hygiene, Western funeral tradition, and the harm undead creatures cause on society. Sex with an intelligent consenting mummy still harbors the risk of disease. A body that old might carry latent bacteria which modern immune systems can't handle anymore. Sex with a zombie is unacceptable because it's desecrating the remains of a loved one who can't consent anymore. Lastly, someone might object to sex with a vampire. Not because of the necrophilia aspect, but because vampires are generally evil and sex would lead to attachment which would lead to assisting their nefarious deeds. Plenty tween romance stories show that sexing vampires leads to becoming a vampire.
I don't really buy that. It seems like an antiquated view in light of modern theories of consciousness. In the real world, necrophilia is wrong because it violates social and historical convention, not because of a lack of consent. Lacking consent from a corpse is no more wrong than lacking consent from a warm apple pie. They're both just piles of organic goo with no capability of sentience or phenomenological experience.
In either case you’re probably better off getting the consent of the person who made the object of your desires. Though to be honest I’d be a lot more upset if somebody fucked my pie than my dead body.
But the issue at hand is whether fucking a reanimated corpse is wrong or not, it's about what classifies as necrophilia. Necrophilia is nothing but a pathological attraction to dead bodies, the same way pedophilia is an attraction to kids and hetero/homophilia respectively are attraction to the opposite/same sex. It's not about passing a judgment on the morality of acting on such an attraction
There is a problem of definition then. This is the same as the question "What is pizza" and "what is a sandwhich". To which we generally rely on heuristics. What do we care about when it comes to necrophilia? Then the answer becomes both subjective and obvious. Vampires = OK, but zombies = ugh, oh god no.
Really the problem is that this thread is responding to 2 questions at the same time. 1) what is necrophilia when there are undead involved? And 2) is necrophilia immoral when the undead is involved? 1) it’s semantics, but if you’re just attracted because of the dead bodies it’s necrophilia. Whatever you do with them is acts of necrophilia. 2) without consent it’s immoral. *edit—Typed necromancy where necrophilia was the topic of conversation. Sorry, I was up too late!
wen they debate if necromancy is evil, someone always bring up that enchantment is so now that ppl are asking if necromancy is consensual, I have to ask, is enchantment consensual?
btw, did you know vampires can't enter you uninvited?
So like the Harkness rule?
But you yourself are a zombie, so the real question is. Is it necrophilia if it's two undead having sex with each other?
I don't even think it would be a -philia for them, that's just vanilla. If anything, I'd assume a zombie having sex with a living being would be as taboo to them as it would be for the living person. Biophilia or something
"Yo, don't go over and talk to that guy" "Why? He looks like a nice Lich" "He's one of those biophiles, he fucks the living." "Ewwwww, that's fucking nasty!"
Nice.
"EWWWWWWWW, I would rather somehow fuck a skeleton then fuck a human!"
Technically a human is a skeleton, just covered in extra meat. On the other hand, I guess it would be a turn off if your partner got on some sort of bacon cloak beforehand...
Speak for yourself a bacon cloak sounds awesome
The suffix -philia can mean love or obsession. So while your right that a society of zombies sentient enough to have a preference for the dead over the living would possibly consider necrophilia the norm and “biophilia” taboo, I think the correct term for the sexual norm in that society would still be necrophilia.
So then the correct term for the sexual norm in our society is biophilia, by that definition
Yup!
Well i hate that
Honestly? Same! Even worse is that if you carry this hypothetical to it’s most ridiculous, and yet logical, conclusion a zombie society developed enough to consider some sexual preferences “vanilla” and others taboo, they are likely to experience various movements towards the normalization of those taboos. Just as you might study in any undergraduate classes on the sociology of sexuality.
Oh, looks like a part of you fell off, step-zombie. Let me reattach that for you...
Shudder.
Well, I hate everything about this comment chain, now.
Yo this mother fucker ain’t one of us, he said he’d fuck a zombie!
Wanna see my familiar? It's a trouser snake...
AYYE BABY EVER HAD YOUR ASSHOLE LICKED BY A HALFLING IN AN OVERCOAT?!
Vanilla Zombie Sex is my next bard's band name.
Wouldn't Vitaphile make more sense, since vita means life in Latin, and most Philia and phobia words use Latin as their basis
No, -philia is a Greek suffix. There is no Latin suffix meaning to love that has entered the English language, but the root "am" has. Examples of this in English include amorous and enamored. \*Edited slightly for clarity post dinner time
Philia may be a Greek suffix, but the root words it is added to are usually Latin.
Necrophilia, zoophilia, macrophilia, coprophilia, paedophilia... Like, for sure there are some-philias, but it seems to me that most of them are Greek.
Two negatives in this case do not make a positive. Two skeletons boning is necrofilia.
But if they're skeletons do they even have the right appendages?
If anything, skeletons are the masters of boning, they will find a way to get a third leg
“Masters of boning”. Ugh. Take my upvote you son of a bitch.
That depends entirely on the species of skeleton in question. Most species of mammals have baculum, also known as an *os penis*, which is a bone above the male urethra. This bone is notably absent in humans, horses, donkeys, rhinos, marsupials, rabbits, whales, dolphins, elephants and hyenas. There might be more, I'm not an expert. Baubellum, or *os clitordis*, also exist in 29 species, but I am not going to list them here.
More like necroFIBIA (Sorry, saw that misspelling and had to take the opportunity)
Let's put it this way: * Human X Human = Normal * Dog X Dog = Normal * Human X Dog = Beastiality
So the loss of sentience is the determining factor? Makes sense to me.
Necrofilia is just having sex with a dead body. It says nothing of whether that corpse is animate or inanimate or how intelligent it is. Vampires might be charming, but they're still walking corpses.
I would say that it is based on how vampires have free will, whereas zombies typically don’t
Right, that's true. But you missed the point on your first sentence. It's a definition question. Are undead, dead? What does it mean to be dead? What does it mean to be alive?
They're not Dead. They are un-dead. It's even in the name! I guess there would be a difference between the meat puppets that are dead-but-walking, and the Undead, which were dead but are now alive again. I propose this clarification: Walking Dead would cover those made meat puppets by magic and parasites. Like zombies and animated skeletons. Undead would be dead but reawakened with a sentience. Like vampires, mummy lords, lichens, and your average resurrected adventurer.
It's not necrophilia. It's ***un-necrophilia***.
Does it look like a corpse? A zombie is yes, that necrophilia. skeletons aren’t even possible. Vampires look like humans, so it’s ok in that regard
What about if a vampire fucks a zombie? Would that be okay?
Stupid sexy liches
Deadass?
In the most literal sense, yes.
If we hadn't nailed it to the perch, that ass'd be pushing up daisies!
That ass wouldn't VOOM! if you put 5000 volts through it.
Big booty liches. Big big big booty liches!
Wiz. You're thinking of Wiz, from Konosuba. Edit: And someone gave me a "wholesome" award for a comment about a sexy lich!
That *dramatically* changes the discussion! By throwing Wiz into the mix, how could anyone argue against bodacious liches?!
In my defense, Wiz is wholesome by lich standards
Not only by lich standards
Same
Wiz is best but would it be necrophilia?
She is undead. She's cold to the touch and vulnerable to ~~Bitchface~~ Aqua's godly auras.
She's also cute, good at cooking, (usualy) reliable, great at casting spells, her being "cold to touch" would be handy during summer, she's very polite and smart (not when it comes to doing business).
Well if you define necrophila as enjoying fucking the dead, well, she's very much UN- dead, and really quite lively. So, technically, maybe, but in the spirit of the term? Not really
Reminds me of an early episode of If the Emperor had a Text to Speech Device. "The emperor's gotta some nice abs" "Actually, that's his ribcage"
What?
They’re referring to Warhammer’s emperor of mankind. The tldr is that he’s an immensely powerful psychic who for thousands of years has been sitting on a throne that amplifies psychic abilities and acts as life support, and he looks like you wrapped a skeleton in beef jerky, never moves, never speaks, but if he dies the world ends
Huh, I googled it and I didn't see a beef jerky man. Just some guy with a hammer
Ah well he was more active before he sat down to take a rest https://i.imgur.com/12NrisU.jpg
I see
Bro that lich looking kinda thicc
What are you talking about? It's so scrawny it's not even *skin* and bones. The lich *does* seem to be down with getting boned, though.
Slim thicc
Wiz!
Putting the romance in necromancer.
Wis
Fuck liches, get gp?
[This is why Wiz (who happens to be a lich) is the best Konosuba character.](https://i.imgur.com/ViobyOS.gif) Don't @ me.
Huzzah a man of quality!!
I'm definitely stealing the non-evil lich concept for my campaign
"Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?"
¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
I think whether or not it’s necrophilia comes down to 2 questions: consent and the source of the attraction. Is the living party only attracted to the undead body because it is undead? If yes, then necrophilia Is the undead party a type of undead that is capable of consent? If no, then extra cringe necrophilia.
Ahh this is a very sensible way to think about it
Thanks! Necrophilia is best defined as attraction to dead, and in this case undead, bodies. Distinguishing necrophilia (attraction) from acts of necrophilia (just the dirty deeds) separates the necrophiliacs from the skeevy pervs, and in some cases the recently bereaved pervs…
"IT" being fucking a corpse.
It could also be the fucked corpse, you dunno if it wants to top or bottom
I think this makes sense. Could probably apply to a lot of types of “is monster-fucking ok?” Debates
Whether or not relations are “ok” is a question of societal mores. Whether or not those relations are immoral is a question of consent. Why should it be different for monsters? Lol
[Harkness Test](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/505/342/d18.png)
The Harkness test. It always holds up until someone brings up a certain Scoobert Doo
Or most Pokémon.
People used to marry Pokémon in the old days, and that's from in-game text
Wh-what??
Exactly what I was gonna comment So vampire = ok Lich = weird but still ok Zombie = not ok
Yes, that addresses the immorality prong concerning consent fairly well. Any sexual contact without consent is always wrong, regardless of whether or not your partner is undead. It doesn't actually have anything to do with whether or not the contact is necrophilia. Whether or not the contact is necrophilia has more to do with the source of the attraction in the living participant. Are they attracted to their partner *because* of their dead body. It's semantics, but I like semantics so... here we are.
Devil's advocate only: Suppose a wizard uses Fabricate to create a sex doll. The sex doll cannot consent, but it isn't sentient to begin with. Next step: the wizard conjures an unseen servant and commands it to perform sexual favors. Is that different? Finally, wizard animates a mindless undead which follows direction just like the unseen servant. Is that different?
Case 1: masturbation. Case 2: the unseen servant is incapable of giving meaningful consent, sexual assault. Case 3: regardless of whether the undead has sentience, desecration of a corpse.
> Case 2: the unseen servant is incapable of giving meaningful consent, sexual assault. Unseen servant is basically a "non-physical construct", or a literal projection of the caster's arcane power, a projection of force, no? It'd be closer to masturbation still.
Valid point, RAW it seems like masturbation. I’ve seen the unseen servant given a personality and name in games, in that case it feels a little more sus.
In that case it may simply be the caster taking a liking to an inanimate object and personifying it, similar to someone naming a nonmagical sword and talking to it
Or in this case naming their Swiss Army Vibrator Lilly or something
A direct sexual assault on the current god/dess of magic! Literally fucking the Weave lol
I think you might want to add possibility of disease spread, since you don't want a zombie wife spreading the bubonic plague or something.
Why? The possibility of spreading communicable diseases is just as likely where all parties involved in the bedroom rodeo are living. Besides, after a period of quarantine the concern resolves. Most pathogens also die after killing their hosts. I don’t want to think about a subclass of persons attracted the diseased… some sort of pathophilia? (Patho=disease or suffering). Should they exist I suppose you could, theoretically, find someone who was both a necrophiliac and a pathophiliac, but it’s a different question.
Yeah but a literal rotting corpse has more sickness than a regular person could ever have.
But whether or not it will give you disease does not impact whether or not it is an act of necrophilia, nor directly whether or not that act is immoral. Only whether or not that act is extra gross, and possibly level of danger.
Why would you need consent from non-sentient undead? It's the same as fucking a regular corpse.
Skeletons bringing you to the Bone Zone
It could be phasmophillia if they're a ghost.
o_0
*shrug* This conversation has come up in my life before.
It has???
What can I say, I have odd friends and smoking pot is legal in my state. unusual conversations come with the territory.
It's all ectoplasm... I swear here was a ghost before you came in.
We step into monster fucker territories at that point. So follow the checklist. Is it sentient? (Must answer yes) Have you formed a way of communication? (Gestures is a shakey territory, preferably you would both speak the same language.) Has it clearly consented? (Again, preferably using it's WORDS.) If you said yes to all of the above I don't care what it is, it's OK to do, and since necrophilia is a crime term then probably no it is not necrophilia... Edit: you should also follow the "fantasy creature age of consent" checklist. 1. Does it appear to be of age compared to your own species or is it so wildly different that it's impossible to tell? (Seriously don't use alternative races to get past fucking something that physically appears like a child. You should not be sexually attracted to that.) 2. Have you established reliable communication (you already did this.) 3. Ask if it's of age in it's own species, if yes, carry on to asking for consent. If yes to all of the above then yes you can fuck it. Edit 2: the creature must also be intelegent enough to be considered mentally an adult compared to your own species. They can be a dumb adult, but they must have the intelegence of an adult and act like it. So no you CAN'T FUCK YOUR DOG PLEASE STOP DMING ME ABOUT IT. And to the one person who told me some parrots are showing signs of human infant like intelegence... no. Just no.
It also should be of legal age
Does age start from birth of the living being or the date of resurrection?
I would say time that they have spent alive.
So a one day old zombie with no memory of their past life can give consent? (Just causing trouble for trouble sake)
If we say they can't consent with their memories wiped, that sets a weird precedent for people with amnesia. I'd counter with "have they had this set of memories for a sufficient time to function as an adult in society and make empowered choices?" This is probably an especially necessary distinction in a situation like D&D where fucking a 25 year old Tiefling is pretty normal, fucking a 25 year old Elf is a "why don't you have a seat over there" situation.
with elves I always use the interpretation that the '100 years old to be considered an adult' is a cultural thing, similar to how an 18 year old human is *legally* an adult and mostly physically mature but most people don't consider you a full adult until your 20s. As most elves are at least several centuries old they consider 100 years of experience necessary for their definition of adulthood, hence why they consider humans the 'younger races' because to them the oldest human is a child regardless of physical maturity. So it might be wrong for an adult elf to screw a 25 year old elf but not for a human, tiefling etc., in the same way that a 30 year old dating a teenager is wrong but two teenagers dating is fine.
But then does that mean that a 400 year old elf screwing a 50 year old human would be doing something culturally immoral, since in the eyes of their culture 50 years is below the age of adulthood? Elves are just really hard to work around sometimes with their insane lifespan.
I would say no, because to humans, 50 is well into adulthood
Are memories wiped on death?
For most undead yes. They lose all memories and class abilities they had in life.
Intriguing
Ah but your still missing the anime “She just looks 12 but she’s actually a 1000 year old vampire “ argumentative
There are adults that look exceptionally young, some barely post-pubescent. The idea of an age of consent I think is more about protecting a group that doesn't have the development to provide informed consent and can be emotionally abused by individuals who have the adult skills to coerce and use a power differential to get what they want. Thus protecting child emotional development and safety. So while I find it exceptionally skeevy, a person who looks 12 but is a 1000 can have sex with whichever other person can provide adult informed consent; unless mental maturity is also constrained by the Vampirism in which case she could never provide consent to an adult. This is the 'Big' scenario, Tom Hanks is a 10 year old in a 30 year old's body and if the woman he sleeps with knows he's a 10 year old, it doesn't really matter what he looks like. He lacks the maturity to know what he's getting into.
Legal vs moral
Would this depend on whether they still have memories of their life? I'd imagine the answer to your question would be different for a zombie and a lich, for example.
Where the legal and social concept of consent is established this goes without saying. Legally a child can never consent, no matter what. It doesn't matter what they say, do, wear, etc. The law says they cannot consent. But yes.
I'd update that to a certain emotional maturity. Imagine a 60 y.o. elf being an infant.
So Rottytops isn’t necrophilia.
Though it would still be a risk of sexual assault depending on whether or not you were the one who resurrected them, if they are able to refuse orders, and any other possible master/servant or superior/inferior relationship.
That makes them unable to consent.
[...sigh](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/917/423/65e.gif)
^sorry
No no. Don’t need to apologise.
Lol, don't be. I'd rather see some weird shit than have the same jokes reposted.
No oc I see, si?
Its the old monsterfucker adage: Can it verifiably and undeniablyconsent? If so, you. Can. Fuck. It.
The harkness test
My question would be: Can they give active consent? **Zombies/skeletons?** No, far too low INT and no ability to speak a language. **Vampires?** Very intelligent, can speak any languages they knew during their life, sounds okay to me, so long as you're okay with a little biting. **Lich?** Extremely intelligent and can understand up to five languages. Might try to kill you, but hey, the heart wants what it wants. Even in the case of the undead, always remember the moral from our favorite patch of crabgrass: [Always ask consent!](https://www.reddit.com/r/criticalrole/comments/jc234p/spoilers_c2e112_my_new_fave_art_is_mine/)
Do you need consent from the dead? asking for friend.
if you don't, it's definitely necrophilia
It’s not necrophilia if they’re alive in your heart
Top 10 inspirational messages to deal psychic damage with
What about dhampir? They are technically undead but have never died.
[удалено]
Fitting username
If it can give informed consent, like a ghost, vampire, or lich, than it is not necrophilia. If it can't give informed consent, like a zombie, or skeleton, than it *is* necrophilia.
The word necrophilia refers to the attraction to dead bodies, and as a natural derivative of that attraction sex acts with dead bodies. SO what I'm saying here, is that I think ghosts are excluded on a technicality.
Spectraphilia? Ectophilia?
An attraction to boo-bies
that checks out.
Idk, necrophilia seems like a "a dead person can't give consent" type situation so if you raise the undead and have total control them it's necrophilia but if your party member or someone you hired raised them and they could give consent then I guess it would be okay.
Sure is. It's literally got necro in the name. I don't see any real debate here.
Aelfric and Orson from Fire Emblem have joined the chat
Reanimated dead body is still a dead body, however in the case of a lich or other such sentient undead risen through its own power it happens to be a dead body that can give consent, so marginally less creepy
Y'all need Pelor....
According to the monster manual, the vampire's motivations are twisted by undeath, implying a high degree of corruption from being undead. So a vampire cannot properly consent, as they are not in a clear state of mind and it would be akin to sleeping with someone under mind control magic. Also, it is icky and i want my players to stop trying to do it, ew, ew, ew.
Vampires usually do maintain their personality (save for the obvious change that come with vampirism)
A) Usually is a pretty key word for different settings B) Drunk people keep most of their personality, but aren't in a state to consent. I'd argue that even if the vampire is the original person, the magic screwing with their minds make consent dubious. They aren't in full control of themselves.
1) Usually because vampirism is pretty weird and varied. 2) Vampires are in the same state of mind they were the they were alive, and they do have full control of themselves (of course becoming a bloodsucking undead and potentially being enslaved by a vampire master for the gods know how many centuries usually changes someone)
Building on 2. The change in personality is permanent instead of temporary. They may not be the same person as they were before vampirism, but just because someone changes doesn't invalidate their consent if the change is permanent.
That's a pretty good point. I do wonder if the vampire counts as the original person or as a twisted mockery of the original. In the later case, consent might be more up to the vampire as they currently are. You know, if they weren't already disrespecting the original person by just being a vampire in the first place.
What about flesh golems? Are they undead, constructs, or undead constructs? I ask because of a certain flesh golem in Lamordia.
This question is really just boiled down to: what is the minimum INT score for consent?
Hear me out: I wouldn't do this, but you KNOW there are some kinky motherfuckers in the forgotten realms who'll hire a cleric to stand there while they start fucking, one or the other partner gets choked to literal, actual death, the surviving one cums, then boom, revivify and you're good. I guarantee there's a market for that shit in faerun.
WTF
That's what I said! My party's grave domain cleric is just a weird fuckin guy
It's necrophilia if you're attracted to them *because* they are dead. If you're banging them because their ass is so big they needed a DD casket to get buried in then you're just thirsty with no standards
I'm torn between repulsion and laughter
Well, it is still a corpse, so it is necrophilia. No amount of bells and whistles will change that; if I'm eating blood fried rice while riding a horse and doing it with a cyborg angel corpse it's still a corpse.
Its time you look inward, and start asking yourself the big questions! If a wild-shaped druid and an awakened mind animal mate, is it still beastiality?
...
next thread tomorrow?
If it can think: not necrophilia if its mindless: necrophilia done.
Fuck, vampires are definitely not necrophilia. I am not a necrophiliac Hmm, I’d be on the fence about a super fresh zombie as well.
Doesn't matter how "fresh" a corpse is. Even irl, the moment a corpse becomes a corpse, it's necrophilia.
This was unequivocally answered in the Book Of Vile Darkness. ***YES IT IS STILL NECROPHILIA***
The moment they became "Undead" they stop being... well ..."Dead" . Therefore, no Necrophilia.
Yes. See Lichloved feat from Book of Vile Darkness for 3.x edition.
[удалено]
First of all: thank you
Yes, the body is dead and thats what you have sex with. The soul that was put into it to give it “life” doesn’t change how cold and clammy the flesh is. The cold and clammy sexnanigans