wait, people actually get offended at good necromancers here? lol it's just a game why you mad?

>>95950815 (OP)
reported to the crown for the vile crime of necromancy, may your execution be swift and permanent

>>95950824
what crown? were a republic lol (Military dictatorship)

>>95950815 (OP)
the notion is that necromancy is inherently a desecration of the dead, which almost all cultures view at least as an evil act, if not merely unclean or unpleasant one, to say nothing of the possible religious ramifications dependent on whether the person's body/soul is in jeopardy from the act

>>95950884
most of the time raising the dead has nothing to do with the soul ALSO if a lvl 1 spell does that your gods or god is n are fucking weak lol

I'm not mad, but generally it boils down to people just wanting to use undead for manual labor and coping hard about the ethics of it so their character sheet has "good" written at the top instead of "evil." If a player in my games wanted to play one I'd let them do it without question and without any passive aggressive bullshit, but as an idea on /tg/ it's been basically the same threads and arguments for nearly two decades.

>>95950916
good thing i just do my own shit

I'm not offended, I just think it's stupid.
>>95950896
>nothing to do with the soul
Then why use a body instead of just animating statues or something?

>>95950846

With a Service Guarantees Afterlife policy I bet ...

>>95950815 (OP)
No, I'm just burnt out after years of /tg/ pushing various flavors of
> what if this archetypically 'evil' thing is actually good because of utilitarian pragmatism, and also all of the moral and cultural consequences of it were just universally ignored!

It's novel exactly once. Its repetitive by the third thread. By the 110th thread, its gone beyond annoyance.

>>95950884
>>95950896
Animate dead is a 3rd level spell.

>>95950815 (OP)
You're mistaking offense for "I've seen this bait over 10 years ago and it was already stale back then"

>>95950932
cuz no such spells exist? or its more expensive?

>>95950932
Desecrating corpses is cheaper.

>>95950946
>what if this archetypically 'evil' thing is actually good
hate this shit too

>>95950946
>>95950989
>and also all of the moral and cultural consequences of it were just universally ignored!
Most settings where necromancy is portrayed as "archetypically evil" ignore these things anyways in favor of just saying "its bad because, uhm... its bad, ok?!". It's faggots like you that are guilty of what you're pretending others are doing.

>moral consequences
What moral consequences are there if it's not interfering with souls or the afterlife? None.
>Cultural consequences
Culture is downstream of reality. If a guy could raise a bunch of corpses and have them manage a mega plantation as free labor with literally zero downsides, the culture of your setting wouldn't view necromancy as sacrilege. That's not "utilitarian pragmatism", that's just how reality works. In real life we used human slaves to do the same shit for thousands of years. If there was a cheaper or better alternative, it would become an accepted norm immediately.

>Okay, but I want necromancy to be bad and wrong anyways.
Then come up with actual interesting reasons for why it wouldn't or shouldn't be used, faggot. When did creativity die on this board?

>>95950815 (OP)
who are you quoting

>>95950946
It's also aggravating because the utilitarian pragmatism only triggers for selfish reasons. For instance, when you get a /tg/ argument about how demons and devils should be redeemable or not always evil at the very least, it's 100% of the time about succubi. No one gives a shit about Planescape outsiders who can be reasoned with individuals or say a vrock somehow found redemption. They want fuckable demon ass without the consequences of fucking said demon ass. It's the same sort of nerds who wank to grey jedi because they want their guy to be cool and heroic while also killing people and shooting force lightning.

>>95950958
Animate object is right next to animate dead...

>>95951101
bones are objects doe

>>95951101
Ok so you're posting this as a reason to use animate objects instead of animate dead, but it has the RADDEST FUCKING PICTURE EVER of a skeleton dude riding a skeleton horse and they both look like they're having a fucking awesome time dancing in the pale moonlight?

Like, I was not pro-necromancy before, but give me some bone-bros stat.

>>95951101
All Animate Object does is attack. Animate Undead is obviously way more useful.

>>95951039
>Culture is downstream of reality. If a guy could raise a bunch of corpses and have them manage a mega plantation as free labor with literally zero downsides, the culture of your setting wouldn't view necromancy as sacrilege. That's not "utilitarian pragmatism
Bro thats literally utilitarian pragmatism.

>>95951167
No, it's reality.

>>95951087
Demons/devils are tricky because depending on the setting they are either "powerful and contract oriented, its possible to make a deal with a demon that isn't inherently bad but recognize that they WILL demand a price for their services" or "demons literally exist to cause suffering and pain and death, anything else they do is purely as a vehicle to cause more harm in the short or long term".
The former can be interacted with in interesting ways. The latter can only be destroyed, and even in the extremely rare circumstances that a good demon MIGHT exist you still have to destroy them, because you can't afford to take the risk that this is the ruse that it almost certainly is.

Its the difference between, say, Succubi in Konosuba (where succubi trade their services by giving people magically induced dreams of their greatest fantasies for just a tiny bit of their life energy, eating a little bit from a bunch of people a night instead of eating anyone to death to survive) and Slaneeshi demons. The former is a predator of humanity, but one intelligent enough to recognize the benefits of NOT positioning themselves as an enemy. The latter is just Hellraiser shit. Both are sex demons, but only one of them would be anything other than insane to treat as something other than an enemy.

>>95951039
>If there was a cheaper or better alternative, it would become an accepted norm immediately.
If we're talking expenses by itself Animate Dead is still very financially inefficient than just buying unskilled labor. Using 3.5 rules because it's the only one that even gets close to feasible for industrial undead (4e doesn't really have the option for this if I recall and 5e's animate dead requires constant babysitting for much fewer undead), for each skeleton you need the cost of a 3rd level spell and 25 gp worth of onyx. An untrained laborer goes for 1 sp per day, so not even factoring in spell labor costs you get one dude for 250 days.

I also cannot stress enough that in the vast majority of games that have player facing necromancy rules, undead are really fucking stupid outside of actions like "go kill that guy" or "stand here and kill anyone who is not me." You can't really just ask it to harvest crops, cut wood, plow a field, etc, and if you break them up into micro tasks you basically waste a reasonably powerful caster babysitting a clumsy child who hates the living.

>>95950916
>so their character sheet has "good" written at the top instead of "evil."
WotC has never set their foot down with a remotely coherent chain of logic connecting Undeath to Evil. They are governed by different classes of Plane, the Undead explicitly do not involve the soul of the body, the game revolves around killing with often exceptionally agonizing means...

The reasons given for the ethics being bad are either explicitly not true or them being true is at enormous odds with the structure of D&D.

>>95950932
>Then why use a body instead of just animating statues or something?
For whatever reason it's DRASTICALLY easier to synthesize a Negative Energy animating spirit for dead flesh and bone than make stone move. At all, long-term, AND at-scale.

>>95950815 (OP)
Woohoo! Another autist who doesnt understand why the locals are all "SHUT THE FUCK UP! YOU ARE MESSING WITH THE REMAINS OF THOSE WE LOVED! REBURY OUR FRIENDS, PARENTS AND CHILDREN NOW AND FUCK OFF OUT OF OUR VILLAGE BEFORE WE BURN YOU!"

>>95951272
No anon you must understand you have to make everyone have no moral or cultural opposition to this idea. Look at my spreadsheet, my idea is perfect, especially if you assume perfectly spherical cows.

>>95951266
>If we're talking expenses by itself Animate Dead is still very financially inefficient than just buying unskilled labor.
You sound like a drawling southerner saying that them fancy machines is too expensive compared to good ol' chattel slaves.

>>95951307
Machines outpace human workers in production speed and quantity, giving you immediate benefits even if it takes time for it to fully pay itself off and produce pure profit. An animated skeleton can ONLY do what a human worker can do, at most topping out at about twice as efficient a worker if we assume it operates with no breaks, and between paying the wizard, covering materials, and the acquisition of the corpse itself (you're kidding yourself if you think corpses are going to be free in a setting with industrialized necromancy. The moment they become a commodity you depend on they acquire a price point) now you are looking at a year or more before the skeleton actually becomes a cost savings compared to a human worker.

Manual labor, also, is the type of labor *most likely to result in injury*. Skeleton workers WILL break bones, either due to random accidents or poor programming (the skeleton was never instructed NOT to stand in fire, and has no inherent fear of harm to direct it to avoid it) and any damaged or destroyed skeleton is going to be vastly more expensive to replace than a person.

For anyone who isn't already very wealthy, the investment cost needed to create a workforce of skeletons doesn't even exist for you in the first place.

>>95951272
muh locals muh families

what this nigga sayin

>>95951449
You know exactly what he's saying, and the fact that you can't come up with a counter argument so you are just throwing the conversation equivalent of a smokebomb and fleeing shows you both know that and are a coward.

>>95951489
ALL UNDEADS ARE HECKIN FAMILY MEMEBERS

stfu faggot

>>95950815 (OP)
>lol it's just a game
K, you're banned, feel free to seethe and mald to your heart's content :^)

>>95951494
>people are not born, just spawned as mobs by the game engine

>>95951426
>Machines outpace human workers in production speed and quantity, giving you immediate benefits even if it takes time for it to fully pay itself off and produce pure profit
Already a contradiction. Buying more slaves would increase production speed and quantity and is cheaper than the machine relative to cost. Machines are simply more profitable over time, in the same way that Undead are more profitable over time as well.

>at most topping out at about twice as efficient a worker if we assume it operates with no breaks
They would actually be at a minimum of three times as efficient, but more likely in the 5-10x range. Undead workers never slow down, they never slack off, they don't need breaks, they don't take days off, and their productivity doesn't plummet based on the day of the week but stays perfectly consistent at all times.

>paying the wizard
What, you can't cast spells? Are you some kind of low int martialfag?

>and the acquisition of the corpse itself (you're kidding yourself if you think corpses are going to be free in a setting with industrialized necromancy.)
In real life corpses outnumber people at a 10:1 ratio easily. Throw in monsters and you can probably find 100-10,000 corpses for every living laborer. The material cost of the spell would be the only issue, but market value doesn't factor in so skeleton workers will always have a stable cost.

>Manual labor, also, is the type of labor *most likely to result in injury*. Skeleton workers WILL break bones, either due to random accidents or poor programming
Skeletons don't have accidents as they don't suffer from human malfunctions. Their hands don't shake and suddenly cause them to slip, and they don't come into work hungover and forget not to stand behind a moving tractor all of a sudden. Programming issues are easily solvable.

>For anyone who isn't already very wealthy
Adventuring, son, ever heard of it?

>>95951272
Most undead are ethically sourced from monsters or old battlefields. The average age of human-sourced undead labor is in the 2-3 century range. You're complaining about a problem that doesn't exist.

And if you think a wizard is using unethically sourced undead, go lodge a complaint with the local Necromancer's Guild instead of screaming your head off in public like a raving beggar.

>>95951522
moralfag lmao

>>95951511
>ur le b-banned

say that again without sounding mad pls

>>95951524
>What, you can't cast spells? Are you some kind of low int martialfag?
>Skeletons don't have accidents as they don't suffer from human malfunctions.
>A skeleton’s Dexterity increases by +2, it has no Constitution or Intelligence score, its Wisdom changes to 10, and its Charisma changes to 1.
If you're not hiring a wizard to manage your undead, then that means you're doing it yourself. Clearly as a powerful caster the best use of your time is walking around barking incredibly simple orders at skeletons.
>Skeleton 32, pick up that rock I'm pointing to.
>Ok Skeleton 32, go to the rock pile.
>Ok Skeleton 32, since you have no concept of what the rock pile is, follow me to the rock pile for the next 5 minutes.
>Ok Skeleton 32, place the rock in that pile.
>Ok Skeleton 32, follow me.
>Ok Skeleton 32, pick up that rock...

Meanwhile Greg the Unskilled laborer
>Hey Greg, I need you to move all of these rocks over to the rock pile that's about 5 minutes way. When you're done with that haul some lumber next to the shed we're building. If you don't finish that today, go ahead and continue with that first thing tomorrow.

I fucking hate this place

>>95950815 (OP)
People get offended when I do this
*rips a greasy pepperoni fart directly in your face*

>>95951591
>If you're not hiring a wizard to manage your undead, then that means you're doing it yourself.
Duh.
>Clearly as a powerful caster the best use of your time is walking around barking incredibly simple orders at skeletons.
Unnecessary, skeletons can be programmed for total automation while a wizard working on a smaller scale operation need only perform basic managerial tasks, or can use his familiar if need be, or even hire an employee of suitable intellect to manage them in his place.

For larger scale operations it's more feasible to simply have Ghouls and other intelligent undead function as management.

Given your total ignorance of how undead labor is efficiently allocated in a real working environment, let me guess... 1st Level Barbarian? Sorry, not all of us can win the ability score lottery friend.

>>95951524
>They would actually be at a minimum of three times as efficient, but more likely in the 5-10x range. Undead workers never slow down, they never slack off, they don't need breaks, they don't take days off, and their productivity doesn't plummet based on the day of the week but stays perfectly consistent at all times.

We we still talking about farming? Because you can't farm 24 hours a day, thats not how farming works. There is 24 hours worth of continuous work to DO on a farm, it is timegated by nature.
Skeleton workers farming for 24 hours a day will not produce 2x the crops that human workers farming for 12 hours a day will. The fields will grow the same amount of crops regardless.

>>95951649
I'm beginning to wish the sharty had actually won.

>>95951426
>Manual labor, also, is the type of labor *most likely to result in injury*. Skeleton workers WILL break bones, either due to random accidents or poor programming

Just due to time, honestly. Skeletons only last for years and years when stored in cool, dry places where they are not disturbed. Skeletons in open air environments with moisture last way less time. A skeleton actively working on a farm every day will be exposed to a bunch of wear and tear and will break down much faster than a skeleton in a coffin would.
I'd give it a rough estimate of 2-4 years of use presuming ideal conditions before the skeleton becomes unusable.

>>95951665
>skeletons can be programmed
>programmed

And that's how I know that this is no longer theoretically D&D or indeed any other kind of tabletop rpg setting with actual rules regarding necromancy, but some stupid made-up scenario to make yourself feel smarter than you actually are

>>95951524
>Skeletons don't have accidents

Anon, everything has accidents. Especially if they are tasked with moving things around outdoors. Nothing about animate dead gives Skeletons perfect balance and makes them immune to slipping on ice.

>>95951682
>We we still talking about farming?
Farming is the most basic possible application of undead, but you're not a real man of business if you use Undead servants exclusively as equipment for farming fields, anon. They're multitools first and foremost and can be given any number of tasks. Clothes will need sewing, fences need mending, barren fields have to be scoured for rocks and sown ones for weeds, animals fed and tended to, firewood gathering, tools will need repairs - I could go on.

>Skeleton workers farming for 24 hours a day will not produce 2x the crops that human workers farming for 12 hours a day will.
That's correct, we're instead looking at an expected growth of around 4x the bushels per acre on average.
>The fields will grow the same amount of crops regardless.
Haha, no.
Pest control alone would easily more than double the output, but combined with improved soil management and a lack of wastage, faster processing and thus less spoilage and so many other little things that all add up, the amount of food production would be massively increased.

Just about the only thing we'd be missing from modern times is genetically engineering our crops (Which is just a matter of time and effort, easier to accomplish than ever with a labor surplus), and mass production of fertilizer. But undead labor can help with that too.

>>95951714
>And that's how I know
Anon, you wouldn't know how to tie your shoes if I gave you written and pictographic instructions. Please, go complain about your inability to comprehend basic procedures somewhere else.

>>95951725
>Anon, everything has accidents
Not skeletons!
>Nothing about animate dead gives Skeletons perfect balance
It actually does, unless you'd care to explain what exactly causes a skeleton to have imperfect balance instead.
You know, they aren't alive, anon. They are machines, the only difference between them and a golem being the spells involved and the components used.

>>95951784
Still not talking about actual necromancy, fuckwad

>>95951802
Here's your binky, now stop crying.

>>95951743
I think you are vastly over-estimating the level of detail of commands that can be given to and carried out by skeletons.
Commanding a skeleton "Bonehead, file my taxes for me!" does not grant said skeleton a knowledge of tax law.
Whence does the carpentry skills needed to build a fence come from? Who tells the skeleton what crop rotation is? Why would you expect a set of human bones animated by magic to know how to sew, much less do it *well*?
Even telling the skeleton to feed the animals is going to require a more in-depth explanation of what animals get what food in what amounts because otherwise you are getting what is essentially a random outcome for the command given.

There is no necromancy github repository where you can point your skeletons at to download basic commands. Every command you give to a skeleton has to be VERBAL. You are going to have to say your specific instructions in detail. And you are going to have to do it EVERY TIME because Skeletons do not have memory. They act on their immediate command, and thats it. If you instruct the skeleton on the specifics of animal care today, it forgets ALL of that information the moment you ask it to pick up that box, and you will have to re-instruct it.
Per. Skeleton.

The logistics of this blow out of proportion very quickly.

>>95951655
>People get offended when I do this
*rips a greasy pepperoni fart directly in your face*

>>95951743
> They're multitools first and foremost and can be given any number of tasks.
>Int Ø
This fanfiction you're writing for yourself where skeletons are fully programmable intelligent robots is getting sadder and sadder. At 0 Int they're dumber than the dullest of animals. Pretending they can sew, an incredibly context task if thought about for more than 5 seconds, is laughable. You might as well ask your skeletons to build you a spaceship and beat up all of the gods, because it's just as capable of doing that as tending an animal.

>>95951808
Fuck off

>>95951784
> It actually does, unless you'd care to explain what exactly causes a skeleton to have imperfect balance instead.

Skeletons have physical stats comparable to a living human, including dexterity. Balance is a skill based on dex. A skeleton explicitly has no skill proficiencies, even if the person they were in life did so.
So a skeleton has to roll for balance just like anyone else does, and they will always be worse at it than someone who was trained in such skills. A skeleton, therefore, logically cannot have perfect balance because they will fail such rolls with frequency.

>>95951840
You can give orders to groups of skeletons in every edition, though. I agree that the other anon is vastly overestimating their ability, but you do not and never have needed to give individual instructions to every single skeleton.

You are, of course, limited to a degree because you can only group them up if their orders are ACTUALLY identical instead of just being similar. So the 2 guys guarding the door need separate instructions from the 3 guys who guard both the door and the hallway. But they won't forget everything every day either because you can say "do this activity until I issue more orders" which would be a tremendous timesaver.

>>95951882
>but you do not and never have needed to give individual instructions to every single skeleton.
You do if you want them to perform different tasks.

>>95951840
>I think you are vastly over-estimating the level of detail of commands that can be given to and carried out by skeletons.
Skeletons work off simplified if;else commands. Lengthy and time consuming but easier to work with as a base of programming than actual code. Or people, for that matter. If you think people can take instructions better than Skeletons, you need to get outside more.

>Whence does the carpentry skills needed to build a fence come from?
Does a machine need 'carpentry skills' to form a shape, sewing skills to stitch a seam, agricultural knowledge to sow a row? No, it merely follows the parameter you give it.

>There is no necromancy github repository where you can point your skeletons at to download basic commands. Every command you give to a skeleton has to be VERBAL.
Obviously, this is why you write them down beforehand for consistency, and assign instructions in groups. Assuming you don't delegate things across a larger operation of course.

>And you are going to have to do it EVERY TIME because Skeletons do not have memory
They do, though? Skeletons will obey any number of commands given in any order, and can follow complex constructions of any degree or magnitude, so long as each individual action is defined and simple enough.

>>95951850
>This fanfiction
All games are ultimately fanfiction, anon. But what I'm quoting is entirely within the rules of the edition that was chosen.

>an incredibly context task
Did you mean to say something less intelligible? You shouldn't call skeletons dumb when you can barely even handle the English language, my dear anon.

>>95951866
Or keep crying, I can't stop you and don't much care to, hah.

>>95951920
In what game is commanding a skeleton like programming a computer?

>>95951871
>Skeletons have physical stats comparable to a living human, including dexterity. Balance is a skill based on Dex
Balance as a skill is not what we were discussing, otherwise it's a non-factor: Don't order the skeleton to make a Balance skill check or do anything that would force it to take one, ezpz.

It's like you forgot what you were even complaining about!

These threads make a lot more sense when you realise, sad as it sounds, that there are people on /tg/ who actually identify with fantasy character classes or archetypes. They actually identify with the "necromancer" concept and it's very important to their identity that necromancers are X, Y and Z in all cases.

These people populate all the worldbuilding threads on /tg/ and get very angry with anything that doesn't fit the version of a concept in their head, because it disrupts their identity. That's why they only argue in terms of their own headcanon and refuse to engage with any specific RPG or setting.

>>95951930
The one we're talking about? Did you really say skeletons don't have memory when you can't even follow a conversation, anon?

>>95951920
If you actually knew programming as well as you imply you do, you would know the limits of if/else logic when applies to complex situations and real world problems.

>>95951952
>>95951962
And there it is. Confirmed just shitposting with no intention of having a consistent or defensible stance on the matter.

>>95951967
>>95951986
You seem a little upset that you don't know as much about this subject matter as I do. I'm sorry, I know it's wrong to belittle those of lower int scores. But it's not my fault, I'm a wizard not a sorcerer man.

>>95951962
I’m not that anon, I just see a lot of hypothetical but nothing of it relating to tabletop gaming whatsoever since there are no, you know, actual rules for any of this shit being presented to back it up

>>95951960
facts

>>95952013
There's plenty of rules for it though? Sorry that you aren't familiar with the books, anon. Maybe once you get a game that'll change!

>>95952031
Name one game with rules supporting what you’re talking about, with page numbers to cite specifically, you troll

>>95952050
It's been posted in the thread. You'll have to do the work to figure out what we've been talking about otherwise.
Besides, you're not a skeleton so following these instructions should be easy for you, right?

>>95952050
In his next post, he berates you for not being able to just read the books yourself while still never mentioning a system.

>>95952066
Name it in your next post, or I dub thee a liar and pedophile

>>95952050
You've never played 3.5e have you zoom zooms?

>>95952074
Ah, damn, finding the image made me too slow.

>>95952085
>>95952074
>>95952050
Pitiful failed samefag.

>>95951039
The real problem is that undead(in D&D terms) are just a very peculiar type of golen. Instead of being animate by a regular elemental they are animated by negative energy entities, basically entropy elementals that can be very aggressive and dangerous if left uncontrolled.
It's the fantasy equivalent of nuclear energy, and just like in our world all that it's needed is one minor accident and propaganda to make people against it

>>95952084
If you’re talking about D&D 3.5, then I know that commanding the undead can’t do the level of shit that keeps being claimed in it since they only process basic instructions as per the rules. So are you talking about a different game?

>>95951272
>Thinking the local religion would be against such materialist attachments to rotten corpses when they know for a fact the soul is already disconnect from those

>>95952140
>It's the fantasy equivalent of nuclear energy, and just like in our world all that it's needed is one minor accident and propaganda to make people against it
This is a common propaganda piece by nuclear advocates, but honestly it has little impact on policies and economic trends.
The reason nuclear energy never gets support is because it has absolutely horrid return on investment, both in actual energy output and in capital. Even in ideal conditions it can take over a century before you see a nuclear power plant actually turn a profit.

The market tried anyways. I mean, it really did try to make it work, more than it has with most alternatives. We even had nuclear freighters and such running around half a century ago. But anything that wasn't heavily subsidized sunk under the weight of operating costs. The only real exception was the French Nuclear Energy sector, but they were also getting fuel from Niger for roughly 2% of its market value. Ever since they lost access to unbelievably cheap fuel, they've been getting fucked.

>>95952157
>If you’re talking about D&D 3.5, then I know that commanding the undead can’t do the level of shit that keeps being claimed in it since they only process basic instructions as per the rules
The undead can do everything that has been mentioned so far with sufficient instructing, nogames troll.

>>95952188
Prove it. Cite your claims, baby pussy addict

>95952196
Sorry, I don't give (you)s to retarded gay pedophiles.

>>95952201
I accept your surrender

>>95950815 (OP)
So every now and then You read some self proclaimed smart guy who drops the idea that corpse robots can be used in fantasy as a source of free labor by the good guys. The usual counter-argument to this hogslop will be something about either cultural notions of the value of a body, or some variable extra factor made up to make it even more obviously dangerous, both easy to shrug off for the enlightened setting and value relativist. No more. It's time to point out that its defining limitation really does make it just as evil as it looks no matter what, when a corpse robot can only come from a corpse, and a corpse comes only from a person. Specifically a dead one, every corpse robot made came from the end of a life, when the beginning of one is already a little bit of a moral pickle whenever it's being measured in economic terms.

And the measurements are themselves grim. Corpse robots have, at minimum, no human needs. We may also assume that they're absent of any free willed consciousness just to make this look even "less" evil and cut to the bone of how that's worse. We're talking about something worker-like whose economic value is inherently positive.

Human beings have an inherently negative economic value. They need food, they need housing, they need to be cleaned and have their waste disposed of, to say nothing of whatever further damage their erratic nature may cause. Half of the economic benefits of the living are just ways of exploiting these costs. Most of their worth (in purely economic terms it should be mentioned) has to be added to them by extra means that take years to pay off, and need dedicated institutions. The simplest of improvements, to make them a usable form of uneducated labor, are obsolete compared to having a corpse robot.

>>95952213
The world as We know it already struggles with incentives to define someone as a worthless person. Most of the people making this proposition have already crossed the line of promoting the prison industrial complex into an execution industrial complex, which is a need, and use, not just for killing people but for having a section of the population that is useful to kill.

The more that these people would depend on corpse robots, the easier that it has to be to end someone's life. Getting your way into building a modern standard of living, or better, off the backs of the dead would mean escalating this system into either comitting genocide, or "taxing" the lifespan in a way that would exceed the limited mercies of genocide if it happened for long enough.

Anyone trying to automate the world like this would be sewing the seeds of either a bandit state that massacres growing portions of its neighbors to hold up the untenable living standards of its citizenship, or the most extreme expressions of stratification that are possible where one kind of person is worth literally less than his own dead body while another is allowed absolute luxury.

>>95952213
>and a corpse comes only from a person
Monsters and animals aren't people, retard.

>>95952185
>The reason nuclear energy never gets support is because it has absolutely horrid return on investment
then why the ones against it only ever screech about how it's "dangerous" and push for even less efficient energy sources

>>95952213
So undead workforce is evil because it creates a 'bounty on cobras' problem, where it incentivizes people to murder their neighbors and sell them to be raised as labor?

>>95952185
>The market tried anyways
and it was advancing at a stead pace before the government start blocking it due to anti-nuclear activists

>>95952240
>then why the ones against it only ever screech about how it's "dangerous"
They don't lol. If you mean green energy advocates, its because their shit is almost as bad on returns as nuclear energy and they're both competing for the same government subsidies that allow them to exist in the first place.

>>95952247
>and it was advancing at a stead pace
No, it fell completely out of favor because it was shit. It was nearly impossible to find investors that weren't also interested in the military applications of enriched uranium even before nuclear disasters happened.
As it turns out, investors don't like to be told that even their great grandchildren may not see a penny of profit.

>>95952252
>They don't lol
it's all they do

>they're both competing for the same government subsidies
They don't, and the fact that countries such as Germany starting getting energy problems after they shot down their nuclear plants and similar plants running efficiently in countries like Japan and the US already contradicts your idea of them being bad in economic terms

>>95952269
>it fell completely out of favor because it was shi
it only started falling out of favor due propaganda about it being dangerous, there is no evidence for any of your claims about it being inefficient or a bad investment, you are just trying to push your anti-nuclear creed without looking like a eco-activist

>investors don't like to be told that even their great grandchildren may not see a penny of profit
>just ignore the profitable plants

>>95952285
>it's all they do
Nah.
>They don't
They do.
>countries such as Germany starting getting energy problems after they shot down their nuclear plants
Germany had no energy problems until the Russians stopped giving them cheap gas.
>countries like Japan (currently going through a neverending recession)
>and the US (will bomb your country into glass for slightly lowered oil prices)
Not exactly making an argument for your case here lol. Both the US and Japan also invest far more into green energy than they do into nuclear, which are largely non-commercial and do not actually turn a profit after accounting for subsidization.

In the year 2021 alone, more solar and wind power generation capacity was constructed than all nuclear plants in the world, totalled, can generate.

>>95952185
Pretty sure the issue with nuclear isn't quite that it's cost-ineffective, but that it relies on ludicrous amortization scales to reach cost-effectiveness. That is, the facilities are fantastically expensive to build, but they have a long enough service life to be a great power source if you can get a 50-year commitment.

>>95952313
It started falling out favor because it doesn't make money. The entire world has had access to it, and the only places this "propaganda" could even have affected was Europe and America. Yet strangely, the rest of the world, even China, Russia, Iran, and other shitholes with no regard for human life, seem to think Nuclear isn't worth investing in commercially.

>there is no evidence for any of your claims about it being inefficient or a bad investment
The market is a pretty good piece of evidence lol.

>just ignore the profitable plants
They don't exist anymore and haven't ever since Niger nationalized its uranium mine. Every single nuclear power plant operates at an ultimate loss that is only offset by subsidies, and only because there needs to be a nuclear market to produce enriched and depleted uranium for military purposes.

Nuclear energy really only still exists because it's useful for military reason.

>>95952335
Try 100+ year commitment, and even then this assumes ideal conditions and subsidization. We literally haven't had the time to determine if they're cost effective in the end *at all*.
It's pretty probable that they aren't. Green energy isn't much better mind you, but it doesn't take 100 years to show results.

>>95952349
>They don't exist anymore
The Hanul plant in South Korea
The Bruce plant in Canada
The Barakah plant in the UAE
The Palo Verde Plant in the US
The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in Japan
All the Chinese ones....
Not that was ever dependent on Niger for fuel
French is not the only country heavy on nuclear power faggot

>Try 100+ year commitment
No, more of a 30 to 40 years commitment
about the same as most large industrial projects

>We absolutely fucked this industry with short termism and regulations
>Lmao, it's unprofitable
You fuckin' people.

>>95952318
>Germany had no energy problems until the Russians stopped giving them cheap gas.
they only became reliant on russian gas after shutting down their nuclear plants due the pressure from environmentalist activist(that ironically turned out to have been funded by the russians)

>>95952417
>The Hanul plant in South Korea
>The Bruce plant in Canada
>The Barakah plant in the UAE
>The Palo Verde Plant in the US
>The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in Japan
>All the Chinese ones....
None of these are profitable when you account for subsidies lmao.
>French is not the only country
Good to see that someone who can barely speak coherently can't understand the concept of profit. I always feel more confident when someone stupid is disagreeing with me.
>No, more of a
100+ year commitment*
>about the same as most large industrial projects
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

>>95952443
>None of these are profitable when you account for subsidies lmao.
they are, and in fact they receive less subsidies than other types of energy plants

>100+ year commitment*
accourding with my ass

you still didn't explain why the anti-nuclear lobby always screech about how we can't build more plants because "muh safety" and never for any other reason

>>95952425
>We absolutely fucked this industry with short termism and regulations
This describes every industry in America.
Also, nobody else uses nuclear even where there are almost no regulations beyond "don't turn the entire country into an irradiated shithole retard".

>>95952431
Nord Stream was initiated in 2005 and early pipeline deals were signed in the 70s. Germany's nuclear power plants were a non factor in this dependence because they were never cheap or profitable.
Also I find it funny that France, highest user of nuclear energy per capita in the entire world, has been experiencing energy problems and has been suffering from rolling blackouts all year long. I thought nuclear was da bestest energy source ever, why is it a total failure now that we can't enslave people to mine uranium for us???

>>95952468
>they are
n't.
>and in fact they receive less subsidies than other types of energy plants
They receive hundreds of times more. The Bruce Plant in particular was the center of a scandal because to even get investment in it, the government had to agree to subsidize it so it never went in the red financially for nearly a century.
>accourding with my ass
Talking out your ass is all you've done, yeah.
>But you've never argued with my strawman!
Ok? Not my problem that you're too retarded to accept that your points are wrong.

>>95950950
and?

>>95952468
>they are
The DIW institute disagrees and made a study demonstrating otherwise.

>DIW calculated that for every 1,000 Megawatts of nuclear power capacity that may be constructed under different conditions, there would be an average economic loss of between 1.5 to 8.9 billion Euros ($A2.4 to $A14.3 Billion).

>"Nuclear power was never designed for commercial electricity generation; it was aimed at nuclear weapons. That is why nuclear electricity has been and will continue to be uneconomical."

>While examining the history of nuclear power development globally, DIW found that it was military considerations that were the primary driver of nuclear reactor developments, with power generation a secondary product.

>“The further development of nuclear weapons and other military applications was the focus. Nuclear power plants were primarily designed to be “plutonium factories with appended electricity production,” the report said.

>>95950815 (OP)
Because I want to play games in a traditional fantasy setting about good guys destroying evil monster's.
Not your amoral subversion about openly disruption said traditional fantasy setting for your own self satisfaction.
Same reason I dislike "muh industrial revolutions" gunfags

>>95952468
>they are, and in fact they receive less subsidies than other types of energy plants
That's objectively not true though. Nuclear costs 5-13x more per kwh than solar or wind power.

"Nuclear le good!" is unironically just shit retards believe in because it's contrarian to the narratives they're used to. They're too fucking stupid to think that maybe, there's a reason why none of the sociopathic businessmen that rule our world has bothered going all in on Nuclear. It's not like they give half a flying fuck about the environment or safety.

It always baffled me that raising skellies is considered evil but entire enchantment school is a ok (stuff like rewriting memories, bending the will of others, toying with their emotions and entire personality etc)

>>95952512
>Euro institute that panders to progressive activists
>assume retarded euro regulations
>ignore all the countries that build extensive nuclear power matrix without any nuclear weapons prograns
Again, the world is not Europe faggot
your "green" energies are a failiure

>>95952469
>nobody else uses nuclear
exept all the countries that do use it and planning to expand it's use as the "green energy sources" prove themselves to be failures

>>95952549
>none of the sociopathic businessmen that rule our world
The world isn't rule by businessmen but by short sighted politicians that only care about optics and short term returns or delusion of dictating the economy and planning society

>>95952556
Because Enchantment is conflating minor trickery type stuff with outright mind control. When in fiction those are generally used by two separate kinds of people.
Its like comparing the Jedi Mind Trick to Long Term Brainwashing, two vastly different use cases for what are both technically "messing with the mind".

>>95952349
>It started falling out favor because it doesn't make money
It makes a very slow trickle of money, which is anathema to MBAs but together with so much of the fiscal questionability being capital expenses makes it an excellent target for infrastructure spending.

>The entire world has had access to it
No it does not, non-proliferation treaties are a bitch.

Yet strangely, the rest of the world, even China, Russia, Iran, and other shitholes with no regard for human life, seem to think Nuclear isn't worth investing in commercially.
China's a corrupt shithole with an intentionally short-term industrialization plan, Russia has some institutional inertia of Chernobyl and an ASSLOAD of much easier to handle fossil fuels, and Iran keeps getting its nuclear program intentionally fucked over due to the aforementioned non-prolifetation treaties with its own assload of fossil fuels.

>The market is a pretty good piece of evidence lol.
The market has become a pathologically myopic optimizer.

>Every single nuclear power plant operates at an ultimate loss that is only offset by subsidies
Only because the commitments keep falling through due to regulatory bloat and watermelons.

>Try 100+ year commitment, and even then this assumes ideal conditions and subsidization.
You mean like large-scale transportation infrastructure? A rather fundamental aspect of the calculue you are ignoring is that power generation primarily facilitates other productivity. The longer you maintain a nuclear energy project, the more its capital cost amortizes, the lower the marginal cost of energy, the cheaper it is for EVERY other industry.

>We literally haven't had the time to determine if they're cost effective in the end *at all*.
The big tech companies certainly think it is, given they're looking at them for in-house generators for data centers.

>>95952512
Check the regulatory compliance cost versus the US and cross-reference with reactor designs it didn't cover.

>>95952566
>Euro institute that panders to progressive activists
Mathematic studies are, apparently, pandering to progressives now.
>assume retarded euro regulations
They don't.
>ignore all the countries that build extensive nuclear power matrix without any nuclear weapons prograns
...None? The US, China, France, Russia, South Korea, India, Canada, Ukraine, and Japan are the only countries with 10 or more nuclear power plants. South Korea, Canada, and Japan are practically just the US by any other name. All others host or hosted nuclear warheads on their territory and are involved in the production of nuclear weapons.

Besides that, Nuclear is heavily monitored by the US to ensure nobody can get weapons-grade uranium, otherwise they bomb the shit out of you like they just barely did to Iran.

>Again, the world is not Europe faggot
Outside of Europe almost nobody uses nuclear energy and doesn't have nukes because it's not profitable lol.

>your "green" energies are a failiure
I don't care about green energy, as I've told your cultist ass already. But if it makes you seethe, know that more green energy infrastructure will be built in the next 2 years than nuclear power plants will *ever* be built.

>>95952575
...None, got it lol.

>>95952599
>The world isn't rule by businessmen
Oh sweet summer child.

>>95952630
>They don't.
Then show where in the methodology it say that. You DO have access to the methodologu used instead of just taking a "source: my ass" graph at face value, right?

>>95952556
Cause all the enchanters convinced people with their magic it's not nearly as big a deal as they worried about, obviously

>>95952622
>It makes a very slow trickle of money
No, it doesn't. Operating costs outweigh profits entirely. You need to run them for nearly a century before they can even *theoretically* make a profit, and that itself is questionable.
>No it does not
Yes it does. If little old Armenia and shitholes like Mexico and South Africa can get Nuclear Reactors, there's nothing stopping anyone else.

>China's a corrupt shithole with an intentionally short-term industrialization plan
...Chinese industrialization ended decades ago. You have no idea what you're talking about, and it shows.

>The market has...
This is cope, it thinks its unprofitable simple as.

>Only because the commitments keep falling through
Because they make no money.

>You mean like large-scale transportation infrastructure?
Large-scale transportation infrastructure also has many sides of uses, which is why it exists. However, no, it's much more immediately profitable than nuclear energy has ever been. If you claim otherwise, back it up with a study.

>The big tech companies certainly think it is
n't. Cause they aren't investing in Nuclear, everybody is going all-in on renewables. There's a reason Nuclear is left chasing almost exclusively after subsidies and government funding.

>Check the regulatory compliance cost
Maybe read the study, it's already accounted for.

>>95952678
The Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia do not care for any such thing, the forces of Law and Good remain as they always were.

>>95952651
>Then show
Then read. Its your job to prove claims you make. The study states and demonstrates clearly what I'm saying is true, let's see you provide some counter-arguments instead of just making shit up and expecting everyone to prove negatives when you can't even prove a single assertion you've made.

>>95952622
>The big tech companies certainly think it is, given they're looking at them for in-house generators for data centers.
You're referring to SMRs I assume.
They've been known about since the 50s. "The Big tech companies" aren't really looking into them at all, and I don't know what would make one claim otherwise.
SMRs are just another one of those things that occasionally get brought up as a point of interest and a possible future development that could lead to some new innovation, but most decades they go nowhere and nothing happens with them. Much like how we've totally for real this time been on the edge of achieving fusion power since the 50s. Anyone who expects anything to come of it is just wishcasting.

>>95950815 (OP)
We had the same thread yesterday and it's still up. Why does this one have more posts already? Are mods not doing their job?

>>95952691
>Operating costs outweigh profits entirely. You need to run them for nearly a century before they can even *theoretically* make a profit, and that itself is questionable
If running them long-term allows a profit, then it cannot be a loss to operate. You seem to be confused about what "amortizing capital expenses" means.

>Yes it does. If little old Armenia and shitholes like Mexico and South Africa can get Nuclear Reactors, there's nothing stopping anyone else.
After what the Jeets did, there is in fact a significant regulatory burden.

>...Chinese industrialization ended decades ago.
And because it was intentionally short-term all their industrial pipelines revolve around quick bucks, not the decades-long plane needed for nuclear.

>This is cope, it thinks its unprofitable simple as.
No, it thinks it's a bad return-on-investment, which difference from the "loses money" of unprofitability as "makes too little for how long it takes".

>Because they make no money.
Because as you yourself say they take too long to amortize. Which makes your reasoning circular.

>Large-scale transportation infrastructure also has many sides of uses, which is why it exists.
And power generation covers all of that and then some.

>However, no, it's much more immediately profitable than nuclear energy has ever been.
Again with agreeing on amortization. Lack of immediacy does not guarantee a loss, only that the market sees a drastic increase in risk.

>Cause they aren't investing in Nuclear, everybody is going all-in on renewables.
Give a quick search to Three Mile Island. There are in fact companies looking to nuclear as personal base-load plants, something solar and wind are DOGSHIT at.

>Maybe read the study, it's already accounted for.
>>95952701
>Then read.
Which one? All you've given is an org name, a "source: my ass" graph, and some greened quotes.

>>95952751
>You're referring to SMRs I assume.
No, Microsoft reopening Three Mile Island.

>>95951524
>They would actually be at a minimum of three times as efficient, but more likely in the 5-10x range. Undead workers never slow down, they never slack off, they don't need breaks, they don't take days off, and their productivity doesn't plummet based on the day of the week but stays perfectly consistent at all times.
They also completely lack initiative, don't react to changing circumstances and require constant oversight.

>Skeletons don't have accidents as they don't suffer from human malfunctions. Their hands don't shake and suddenly cause them to slip, and they don't come into work hungover and forget not to stand behind a moving tractor all of a sudden. Programming issues are easily solvable.
Skeletons are mindless. Their hands may not shake, but they won't think to change their grip on whatever they are trying to hold if they need to. They won't come to work hungover and forget not to stand behind a moving tractor, they lack any sense of self-preservation and won't even think of getting out of the way in the first place. "Programming issue" are easily solved, assuming you don't need the skeleton do anything even mildly complex or follow multiple sets of instructions at once.

>>95951665
>Unnecessary, skeletons can be programmed for total automation while a wizard working on a smaller scale operation need only perform basic managerial tasks, or can use his familiar if need be, or even hire an employee of suitable intellect to manage them in his place.
Sure, if you ignore the fact the skeletons don't obey anyone other than their creator.

>>95952886
>Sure, if you ignore the fact the skeletons don't obey anyone other than their creator.
In 3.5, the Rebuke control pool is transferrable.

>>95952872
>If running them long-term allows a profit
Currently it hasn't, even once, hence why the term "theoretically" was used. Might wanna google that.

>After what the
Heh, nah. It's been world accessible and nobody wanted to jump on that wagon, that's simply the facts.

>And because...
Look, guy, you didn't even know Chinese industrialization had ended. I'm not taking anything you say at face value.

>No, it thinks it's a bad return-on-investment
The investors disagree. Unless they get guaranteed money from the govt, they're always out, which is why there has never been commercialized, private sector nuclear. It's either propped up by the government, or its gone.

>Because as you yourself say they take too long
No, they just make no money.

>And power generation
Irrelevant non-sequitur remains irrelevant, please bring up an actual point if you have one.

>Again with agreeing
We aren't agreeing, please learn to read.

>Give a quick search to Three Mile Island.
Which uh... Doesn't support your points but contradicts it?

>Which one?
The one that was listed earlier. If you troll again I just won't respond to you.

>No, Microsoft reopening Three Mile Island.
Oh, you just have no idea what you're talking about again.
Hint: Microsoft isn't re-opening anything.

>>95952886
>They also completely lack initiative, don't react to changing circumstances and require constant oversight.
Just like normal workers.

>but they won't think to change their grip on whatever they are trying to hold if they need to.
If this were true, they wouldn't be able to swing a sword and fight effectively, which is a pretty complicated and difficult thing to do. I know its hard for the less athletic to understand, but fighting is significantly more demanding of dexterity and the ability to make complex, instantaneous physical adjustments as compared to say, sewing clothes.

>they lack any sense of self-preservation and won't even think of getting out of the way in the first place
Why would they be ordered to go where a tractor would run them over? Simple solution there.

>assuming you don't need the skeleton do anything even mildly complex or follow multiple sets of instructions at once.
They can do all of this pretty easy, though. You just need to not be retarded. A big ask for some, it seems, but not for me.

>Sure, if you ignore the fact the skeletons don't obey anyone other than their creator.
Control is transferable and can be included in orders. Never played the game, huh?

>>95951743
>Farming is the most basic possible application of undead, but you're not a real man of business if you use Undead servants exclusively as equipment for farming fields, anon. They're multitools first and foremost and can be given any number of tasks. Clothes will need sewing, fences need mending, barren fields have to be scoured for rocks and sown ones for weeds, animals fed and tended to, firewood gathering, tools will need repairs - I could go on.
Well, if you DO let skeletons anywhere near agriculture, you're an idiot, as the negative energy pollution from a group of undead concentrated in a limited space will kill crops. They, of course, can't be deployed anywhere near livestock, as animals panic around undead.
You're neither farmer nor a necromancer if you lack such basic knowledge. Let me guess: the only undead you've ever seen was on a pamphlet from some necromancer scammer, and you've bought their lies wholesale, assuming you're not a scammer lying about the capabilities, efficiency and impact of undead presence yourself.

>>95952947
>Well, if you DO let skeletons anywhere near agriculture, you're an idiot, as the negative energy pollution
Can you quote which page this is elaborated on in the rulebook?

>>95952188
>The undead can do everything that has been mentioned so far with sufficient instructing, nogames troll.
Yes. The sufficient instructing being the creator (because they only understand orders thanks to the spell, they lack the capacity to understand language otherwise) giving them orders for every specific sub-task, like >>95951591 describes. At that point, the creator is better off doing the job himself.

>>95950815 (OP)
Because you could make golems instead, but you insist on walking corpses, which inherently spread disease, because you just REALLY NEED the necromancer aesthetic.

>>95953001
>giving them orders for every specific sub-task
This would take maybe 10 minutes if you aren't a retard to do for dozens to hundreds of not!golems.
You're the type of guy who fills out the 10,000 entry excel sheet entirely by hand, aren't you?

A minimalist nuclear reactor is just a steam engine built over a concrete box full of fissile material. Fundamentally no single part of building a reactor is expensive for power or otherwise. Despite that, we (me) would take a large loss on any reactor we built because
1) 80 years of boomer anti-nuclear autism means we have to develop and/or buy the technology to build and run one from scratch
2) we have bazillions of pre-existing infrastructure for coal-fired plants which benefits from being mature technology that's already paid off
So is nuclear unprofitable? Obviously not- we cant rely on coal. Our population is growing unsustainably and we now run 40% of our grid on renewables with much lower efficiencies than nuclear and operate all the grid management infrastructure nesessary to make them work. We need more power and cannot afford more coal infrastructure both environmentally and logistically- the ports and rail lines to ship it dont exist. But no politician serving a four year term wants to make a 20 year commitment to nuclear, so we burn money on renewables when we could just be boiling water on a pile of hot rocks that will keep cooking for 150 years

Oh also we deliberately dont develop nuclear power so we remain politically dependent on the states

>>95952919
>Currently it hasn't, even once, hence why the term "theoretically" was used.
What "operating costs" mean is the moment-to-moment resources consumed and maintenance costs. If this incurs a loss, then running it for longer just digs a deeper hole. For long-term operation to "eventually" turn a profit, the day-to-day operation must be at least slightly profitable.

>The investors disagree.
...No, they very much agree. "Bad returns" does not HAVE to mean "zero returns", and YOUR OWN STATEMENTS require there be non-zero returns rather quickly. Your own GRAPH shows it with the negative going down!

>No, they just make no money.
If they make no money, there is no length of running them that will ever turn a profit.

>Irrelevant non-sequitur remains irrelevant
...We are literally talking about power plants. How the fuck is the things being a direct input to transportation not relevant?

>We aren't agreeing, please learn to read.
We are agreeing that they cost a fuckload of money up-front that takes generations to be payed off by its operation. You just somehow fail to understand this requires said operation to turn at least slight profits.

>The one that was listed earlier.
The only reference to a study I see is >>95952512 which does not source which study from the organization it is from. And a Monte Carlo simulation of a 1,000 megawatt power plant is a random sampling analysis of a fraction the usual output, so it doesn't pass the sniff-test well enough for me to trudge through.

>Hint: Microsoft isn't re-opening anything.
That they aren't directly employing the people doing the work does not change that the purpose of such is specifically to power their data centers to the point that the company doing it made an agreement with Microsoft in particular about it.

>>95953032
The funniest thing about this schizophrenic ranting is that almost all nuclear regulation is from the 80s and 90s after Chernobyl.
The boomers lived during the time when it was easier than ever to invest in Nuclear, and yet nobody did because it didn't turn a profit. "Regulayyshunz!!!" are merely the cope used by people who desperately wish they could flip a switch to solve all of their problems.

>>95952964
Book of Vile Darkness and Libris Mortis, can't be bothered to look for a specific page. Possibly some other sources.

>>95953041
>What "operating costs" mean is the moment-to-moment resources consumed and maintenance costs. If this incurs a loss, then running it for longer just digs a deeper hole.
Which it does.

>...No, they very much agree
With me yeah, not with you. There's a reason not a single nuclear reactor, ever, has been a private sector affair.

>If they make no money, there is no length of running them that will ever turn a profit.
Yes, I accept your concession.

>...We are literally talking about power plants
And then you started sperging about infrastructure, and when called out on not knowing what you were talking about flip flopped away from it.

>We are agreeing that they cost a fuckload of money up-front that takes generations to be payed off by its operation.
They do, and they also cost a fuckton just to operate at all. Uranium is a terribly difficult to acquire and process fuel source, you know, which is why all economic analyses have shown NPPs operating at a loss.

>which does not source which study from the organization it is from.
Yes it does.

>so it doesn't pass the sniff-test well enough for me to trudge
Basically, you don't understand the graph or the simulation, and want to use any excuse you can not to actually argue the facts. That's fine, nuclear advocates are usually morons who think the politicians, the boomers, the activists, the businessmen, and the heavens themselves are all conspiring to keep them from not having to pay their electricity bill ever again.

>That they aren't directly employing the people doing the work does not change
It kinda absolutely does, retard. It's like saying that I'm personally opening up a brand new NPP because my tax dollars are subsidizing it.

>>95953051
>Can't be bothered to find the page
Alright guess you were wrong then if you can't support your argument.

>>95952313
>it only started falling out of favor due propaganda about it being dangerous
The good ol' 'Nuclear is dangerous!' propaganda of the 50s, 60s, and 70s lol.

>>95952213
>Human beings have an inherently negative economic value
Human beings have the value of being human.

If I need to say more than that about the subject, it's evidence the reader of this is an incredibly broken thing that has my condolences for being that way. However, you could at least realize this whole INTERCHANGABLE ECONOMIC UNIT mindset is wrong on a rational level too. Who taught you that? Who convinced you this is correct? Where did it drop out of? Not any place resembling anything near reason OR compassion. This mindset lacks both. Utterly. Completely. It is a barren wasteland of a thought.

People have the value of being people. It is for people things exist. It is for people things are made. It is people who consume these things and witness them. It is people that bear more people into the world. It is for the sake of humans that God made a physical reality for us to exist in. God certainly doesn't need an earth to rest His feet on. He was perfectly content in eternity without it. These ARE the actual values that turn the world. Things that don't fit on a spreadsheets, and every time someone thinks they can beat God where the satan failed, they get humbled even more greatly. Their grand plan of, "What if we just killed everyone? They are so inconvenient!" falls apart when it's shown that, without people, everything they have is pointless too.

>>95953131
>God
I get that this is a fantasy discussion but come on now

>>95950815 (OP)
>good necromancers
which game anon? they're complete trash in dnd

>>95953076
>Which it does.
So do you disavow your previous statements?
>>95952691
>You need to run them for nearly a century before they can even *theoretically* make a profit

It is CRUCIAL that you make up your fucking mind on this fundamental aspect, because they cannot both be true.

>>95953076
>And then you started sperging about infrastructure, and when called out on not knowing what you were talking about flip flopped away from it.
No? The entire point of public infrastructure spending is that for various reasons it's a pain in the ass to rely on the market for it. If a power source is infeasible in the private sector due to exorbitant capital expenses but has operational costs sensible for the rest of the economy, then of fucking course it's going to get an subsidies to get it off the ground instead of being ignored by high-time-preference money-men who could roll that capital expense through higher profit margins a dozen times over.

>Uranium is a terribly difficult to acquire and process fuel source
But because the enrichment for power generation is limited and the amount needed is rather small, it's still a miniscule fraction the cost of coal or natural gas for similar output at international market prices. Go ahead, contradict me with actual numbers instead of yet more vague bullshit quotes.

>Basically, you don't understand the graph or the simulation, and want to use any excuse you can not to actually argue the facts.
Then give at least the title of the study, goalpost-shifting retard, so I can be certain I've found the right one instead of chancing you making yet more retarded dodges.

>It kinda absolutely does, retard.
What difference does an intermediate contractor make to who sees value in nuclear plants and why?

>>95952946
>If this were true, they wouldn't be able to swing a sword and fight effectively, which is a pretty complicated and difficult thing to do. I know its hard for the less athletic to understand, but fighting is significantly more demanding of dexterity and the ability to make complex, instantaneous physical adjustments as compared to say, sewing clothes.
Considering a skeleton has wizard's BAB, they are shit at swinging a sword. They retain the weapon proficiency of the base creature, so at least they don't operate at -4 if you make them from martials, but the example skeleton from MM should have -1 to hit, due to the ACP from the heavy shield it's not proficient with.

>Control is transferable and can be included in orders. Never played the game, huh?
Did you? Skeletons have Int - and don't understand language. They only accept vocal commands from their creator because the spell explicitly allows them to. I suppose you can have someone to override the control with Rebuke or their own spells, but that doesn't help much.

>>95953019
>This would take maybe 10 minutes if you aren't a retard to do for dozens to hundreds of not!golems.
Sure, assuming you need all the skeletons do exactly the same thing. You still need to give them the order for every specific thing.
>You're the type of guy who fills out the 10,000 entry excel sheet entirely by hand, aren't you?
Excel is notably more helpful then skeletons when it comes to automatization.

>>95953225
>So do you
Can you read?

>It is CRUCIAL that you
Learn to read.

>No?
Yes?

>But because the enrichment for power generation is limited and the amount needed is rather small, it's still a miniscule fraction the cost of coal or natural gas
Nope, read the study. Getting even a tiny tiny tiny amount of fuel-usable uranium is an insane expense.

>Then spoonfeed me :(
If you're so stupid you can't read my posts, I'm not going to go out of my way to spoonfeed you something you wouldn't even be able to understand.

>What difference does an intermediate contractor make
What difference does your entire statement and all implications being wrong make? Gee, I dunno. Might be that Microsoft having zero interest in three mile island, zero ownership of it, and zero decisions over whether their power plant will be restored or bulldozed makes a difference as to whether you can consider microsoft to be "interested in having in-house nuclear power plants".
I can tell you've never worked a job that isn't retail.

>>95953251
>Considering a skeleton has [nonsequitur]
Skeletons can swing swords capably. That's a fact, even if it riles you up.

>they are shit at swinging a sword. They retain the weapon proficiency of the base creature
Make up your mind, retard.

>Did you?
Yes, why can't you?

>Skeletons have Int - and don't understand language
They don't need to as undead control makes it irrelevant and simple orders can be followed. These include orders that require recognition (Attack this specific human). They can therefore obey orders that require recognition, and be given orders to obey orders, QED.

>Sure, assuming you need all the skeletons do exactly the same thing
To have the same capabilities, sure.
>You still need to give them the order for every specific thing.
You haven't read the rules, nah.
>Excel is notably more helpful
Oh lmao you really are the moron who enters excel spreads manually. Oh jesus, what is life like living with down syndrome, anon?

>>95950815 (OP)
Necromancy is evil. Quit being a pussy and embrace it.
>CAPTCHA: KYSS8
Even 4chan agrees with me!

>>95953049
I didnt mention regulations once in my post, did you reply to the wrong person by mistake?

>>95953254
>Can you read?
Can you finish reading my statements, or are you going to continue dodging the accusation that you've contradicted yourself repeatedly on the fundamental nature of why nuclear is non-competitive?

>Nope, read the study.
Which. Fucking. One. Because it's a fucking German organization so the search engines don't work properly. The one remotely relevant that came up makes it very clear that I am exactly right about "less profitable", because it repeatedly states high-time-preference behavior like accounting for not doing other things with the money during an assumed TEN YEAR construction period. Simply make the bureaucrats do their fucking jobs in a timely manner and a huge chunk of the "cost" evaporates because it was never actually money being payed, it was money EXPECTED to be earned.

For fuck's sake, "net present value" is a financial derivative intentionally depreciating future incomes because of re-investment, so the BASIC MEASUREMENT your graph uses is inherently against the high up-front cost with low profits for a long time model of nuclear power economics I am suggesting as the reason the market hates it.

>Getting even a tiny tiny tiny amount of fuel-usable uranium is an insane expense.
In capital. Which amortizes when you actually use it. Again, I refer to the point of circular logic that they get unprofitable because the commitments are canceled because they're unprofitable. You can in fact bootstrap to profitability, but the High Finance cultists refuse to because they could make MORE with their funny-money games playing stocks.

>>95953392
Hey you're having fun right? I just thought id ask since this is a troll thread and op will reply in bad faith no matter what you write

>>95953392
>Can you finish reading my
Are you so retarded you can't understand that I'm shortening quotes to save space?
The only one who contradicted themselves is you btw. Lrn2read.

>Which. Fucking. One.
Learn. To. Read.

>In capital
Saying nothing.
>Which amortizes
Ok... And?
> Again, I refer to the point of circular logic that they get unprofitable because
They don't 'get unprofitable', retard. They are unprofitable because they operate at a loss. The cost of uranium mining in terms of energy input and market value is greater than the returns are.
How is this such a difficult concept for you? Then again, I shouldn't be surprised, apparently you can't even use a search engine without shitting the bed.

>>95953032
>and we now run 40% of our grid on renewables with much lower efficiencies than nuclear
Renewables are more efficient than Nuclear. It takes both significantly less investments in time and money before renewable generators actually go active, and they are actually profitable too.

>Oh also we deliberately dont develop nuclear power so we remain politically dependent on the states
China, Russia, and Iran are famously dedicated to a foreign policy of remaining totally dependent and subservient to the US.

Ofc in reality every major power on earth has been desperate to get off the teat of coal and oil for decades now because the middle east is a shit show that could halve the global oil trade in one afternoon.
Natural Gas can do it. Nuclear can't do it, they would've been on that shit 50 years ago if it could. Renewables couldn't do it for the longest time, but they're at least looking better by the year and are now at a point where they're growing massively because people think it can replace oil and coal.
But nuclear fission is a total dead end. Great hole for dumb nerds and hipsters to stick their head into though.

>>95950815 (OP)
Depends on the setting.

In many worlds that games take place in, necromancy is dark magic that is sinister and evil. Or it comes more specifically from evil traditions, and the desecration of the dead is very specifically evil. Or the magic used by necromancers itself harms the world somehow, and is therefore immoral to pursue learning and using.

>>95953435
>Are you so retarded you can't understand that I'm shortening quotes to save space?
Given you're not addressing the dropped portions of the same SENTENCE and are nowhere near the character limit, it appears quite reasonable to assume you simply refuse.

>Learn. To. Read.
There is nothing in >>95952512 that directs me to a specific study without rather intensive combing through the wrong ones. You can clearly copy text, so why can't you give a link so we can discuss the source?

>Saying nothing.
"An insane expense in capital" means mostly-static up-front costs, as opposed to operating costs that accrue throughout operation. This is the prime condition for economies of scale, as the marginal cost of each unit falls rapidly

>The cost of uranium mining in terms of energy input and market value is greater than the returns are.
Can you point me to where in this search a kilogram of uranium costs more than 10,000 kilograms of coal?
>https://search.brave.com/search?q=uranium+fuel+cost

>They are unprofitable because they operate at a loss.
So are you going to concede this?
>>95952349
>Try 100+ year commitment, and even then this assumes ideal conditions and subsidization.
>>95952691
>You need to run them for nearly a century before they can even *theoretically* make a profit

Again, there is no "theoretically make a profit" if the operation is at a loss. You stated such a thing multiple times, are you willing to admit you are contradicting yourself?

>Then again, I shouldn't be surprised, apparently you can't even use a search engine without shitting the bed.
"DIW Berlin" gives this site:
>https://www.diw.de/de
As you can see, that's in German. Switch to /en does not change the language of the articles. Do I need to explain to you what the problem is?

>>95953479
Thats nice, but
>Renewables are more efficient than Nuclear.
They arent, and we scaled it so much that homes returning power to the grid is destablizing the ac mains power's wave


>China, Russia, and Iran
I dont live there though, i live here
>the middle east
Dont care because we dont get any power from there, its all domestic

You keep trying to argue against things ive never said. You shouldnt rely on canned talking points, try to have your own opinions or you'll keep getting stuck like this

>>95953578
>Given you're not
I am, infact, and did so in the very post you quoted, dumbass.

>There is no direct link to a study, there are no instructions on how to click such a link, I have never heard of google in my life, why won't you spoonfeed me???
1. Learn
2.
3. Read.

>"An insane expense in capital" means
It's you saying words you think you know the meaning of and looking like an idiot, my guy.

>Can you point me to where
You've been directed to read the study multiple times.

>So are you going to concede
Concede that... What, you can't read at all? That you don't understand what the word 'theoretically' means?
Here's a question: How old is the oldest nuclear power plant, and is it less than or older than a century? Think about that reaaal hard.
>As you can see, that's in German. Switch to /en does not change the language of the articles
I accept your concession that you can't read.

>95953613
>They arent
The data says they are, and everybody is investing in them and not nuclear.

>I dont live there though
That's cool anon, but if you're too stupid to think beyond the basement you live in, uhh... Why are you talking about this and on the board for a social hobby?

>Dont care because we dont get any power from there
Mmm, nah you're lying. Go trollololol somewhere else little boy.

>>95953578
>Too stupid to change the site to English when it's the first thing you see
>Too stupid to use google translate
>Too stupid to reverse image search

>>95952691
As a (now former) nuclear supporter, I concede on this guys behalf. We were wrong, Nuclear sucks.

>>95953622
You seem upset, you're resorting to personal attacks instead of arguments. Take a deep breath and try again.

>95953670
Why'd you post an unrelated image after getting mad?

>>95953619
>I am, infact, and did so in the very post you quoted, dumbass.
Then where did you address the contradiction?

>1. Learn
>2.
>3. Read.
I did search, you seem to be agreeing I found the right site, but because it is in German I cannot find the particular article. I have put in the title of your table and each of the quotes into each of the site's search windows and it gives no results.

>You've been directed to read the study multiple times.
The study you refuse to give actionable directions to?

>It's you saying words you think you know the meaning of and looking like an idiot, my guy.
Per Merriam-Webster:
>Capital (2 of 3) Noun (1)
>1 a (2): accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods
This is the use of "capital" I keep referring to.

>I accept your concession that you can't read.
Again, switching to /en, including by clicking the button in your picture, does not change the articles in the search. Do I need to send you a screenshot to get the point across?

>>95953630
>>Too stupid to change the site to English when it's the first thing you see
Doesn't work.
>>Too stupid to use google translate
Does nothing about the site's backend being in German to find the appropriate article.
>>Too stupid to reverse image search
Is enough of a crapshoot that it is not my habit, especially given the different articles the text search turned up that directed me to the site are embedded in a fashion that makes the graph appear to the be especially-spotty matter of screenshots.

>>95953684
You didnt even give it two minutes! Breathe anon, you're acting like a child. You need to learn to relax, think clearly

>>95953706
>Then where
Lrn2read

>I did search
Apparently not very well.

>The study you refuse to spoonfeed me for?
Kek

>This is the use of "capital" I keep referring to.
I accept your concession.

>Again, switching to /en
Works on my machine, guess you're retarded to nobody's surprise.

>Is enough of a crapshoot
Bahaha you were too stupid to even think of it weren't you?

>95953719
>Everyone is the same person!
>YOU are the child not ME!
Some ppl just get broken with one post.

>>95953729
>Lrn2read
Learn to source if you want to be taken seriously.

>Apparently not very well.
No, inter-language search is just dogshit.

>I accept your concession.
...Giving you the exact definition I'm using is not a "concession", ESL.

>Works on my machine, guess you're retarded to nobody's surprise.
I bet you actually relied on the button instead of noticing the /de to change to a /en. And don't understand the complications the material being in a PDF behind an abstract could cause.

>Bahaha you were too stupid to even think of it weren't you?
Having experiences of it outright not working on numerous occasions with the case in question being particularly prone to them is not "stupidity", it's learning not to rely on shit that doesn't work.

>>95953746
Now be honest, has this cope ever worked?

>>95953764
>Learn to source
Strangely only one retard has had an issue with the source.

>No
Yeah.

>Giving you the exact definition I'm using is
A total concession, you're just too dumb to realize why.

>I bet you actually relied on the button instead of noticing the /de to change to a /en.
Is... Is me being able to read my own computer screen without getting lost an own to you? Lmao

>Having experiences of it outright not working
HAHAHAHAHAHA YOU WERE TOO DUMB FOR IT HOLY SHIT

>95953771
You got broken by me :P

>>95953797
How zoomie do you have to be to to not know how to image search lol

Necromany should be frowned on but shit like summoning other planer creatures should be worse but isn't

Most common "my setting/character is DIFFERENT" type thing that happens with very uncreative people so it's heavily associated with retards

>>95952468
Y'know, I'd like one of the pro-nuclear types to explain their position without sounding like a cuck for once.
Really think about it. It's a type of energy that has barely seen any progress in 80 years. Nobody buys into it, its totally sidelined by the coolest thing ever, Massive Fucking Bombs,
Nearly every Green party the world over has also been able to shut it down and get it thrown to the fucking dogs while getting basically infinite government money to build gay little solar farms and windmills everywhere.
To be a nuclear advocate you've basically gotta be a cuck who likes fighting losing battles with real electricity makers (Oil & Green). Totally emasculating loser position for fags too spiteful to join the winning team.

>>95953820
More pointless name calling... you should try responding to my posts, lashing out like this only shows that you have poor argumentative skills and limited socialization

>95953913
>mowe pointwess name cawwing... u shuwd twy wesponding to my powsts, w-washing out w-wike this onwy shows that you have poow a-awgumentatuv skiwws.. and wimited soshawizayshun...

>Net present value compares future revenue streams to present and future costs. Because both variables are discounted to the present, it indicates the present value of an investment
Yep, the graph's a high-time-preference abstraction about making money off your money, not the actual productivity.

>The analysis assumes an exemplary nuclear plant with an electrical nameplate capacity of 1000 megawatts (MW).
Yep, modeling a plant that's a fraction the typical one, and I can see nothing explaining why they chose it or any intermediate numbers so "source: my ass" was in fact correct.

>12 euros per MWh were included for operation and nuclear fuel
Yep, "operation and nuclear fuel", and a bunch of other relevant terms don't turn up anything to separate fuel cost, so it says nothing on that. Meanwhile, the apparent revenue claim:
>first, the wholesale price of electricity, which was assumed to range between 20 and 80 euros per megawatt hour (MWh) in reflection of the current situation in Europe and as a conservative estimate of the medium-term price trend
The floor of €20/MWh minus the operating cost of €12/MWh is a profit of €8/MWh.

>In the U.S., the Price-Anderson Law limits the liability of the domestic nuclear industry to 9.1 billion U.S. dollars in case of accident. This is less than two percent of the up to 560 billion U.S. dollars-worth of damage that a nuclear catastrophe could cause.30 The remaining 98 percent of the cost would have to be borne by the general public.
Yep, blatant fearmongering based on extreme outlier conditions. Citing an organization that openly states the intent for a zero-nuclear future to boot.

So in conclusion, the source appears to actively contradict the operating cost claim and say it's a bad investment based on a mountain of speculator and watermelon bullshit rather than being infeasible in actual productivity terms.

>>95953928
>and I can see nothing explaining why they chose it
Might be because, ahh, I dunno. Because you don't know what the words you're reading mean, and it's the AVERAGE?
>Yep yep yep yep yep
And you got every single thing wrong. It's amazing just how dumb you are and how easy it was to prove you wrong in seconds. Embarrassing.

>>95953945
>95953928
So in conclusion,
Anon had no idea what the study was talking about
And predictably, immediately made his ignorance clear when he (After spending several hours being confused about how google works) got the most basic terminology about nuclear power plants wrong. Wew, gee, who coulda seen that coming, cough cough cough.

>>95953945
>Might be because, ahh, I dunno. Because you don't know what the words you're reading mean, and it's the AVERAGE?
According to what? And what of the intermediate numbers necessary to check their work?

And please do explain how €12/MWh operating costs for a MINIMUM of €20/MWh revenue is a loss.

>>95953951
>he thinks everyone is an Alphabet zombie
>he thinks reverse image search is reliable for visibly-artifacted jpegs of screenshots

>>95953971
>According to what?
The definition of those words, doofus. You clearly didn't even know what they meant lmao.

>>95953083
>Negative Energy as a Draining Force
Some claim that undead exist concurrently on the Material Plane and the Negative Energy Plane. More precisely, they believe that undead on the Material Plane are linked to the Negative Energy Plane via a conduit, just as life itself somehow partakes of positive energy.

The Negative Energy Plane is the heart of darkness—the hunger that devours souls. It is a barren, empty place, a void without end, and a place of vacant, suffocating night. Worse, it is a needy, greedy plane, sucking the life out of anything vulnerable to its grasp. Heat, fire, and life itself are all drawn into the maw of this plane, which perpetually hungers for more.

The very existence of even the weakest undead produces a constant drain on the energies of the Material Plane, which accounts for sensations of cold often attributed to the unliving. As part of the enchantment of their creation, undead “siphon” a bit of the energy flowing from the Material Plane toward the Negative Energy Plane. This “stolen” energy serves to power their ongoing existence.

Libris Mortis, Undead Physiology, page 7

Undead are walking holes to the Void-That-Eats-All.

>95953971
You're a retard who had no idea what he was talking about. You got owned, deal with it, cry about it, mald until you die about it angry ahh nigga.

>>95953985
That's cool and all my guy, but none of it supports what you claimed was the case. I'll take this as proof that you were incorrect about how undead worked, though.

>>95953993
Im a different anon, just wanted to set the record straight on how undead function

>>95953981
>The definition of those words, doofus.
As in the source of it being the average. And I notice nothing was said of the intermediate numbers.

>You clearly didn't even know what they meant lmao.
Says the defender of "an operating loss can become a profit with a long enough period".

The "source: my ass" graph demonstrates absolutely nothing relevant because it's INVESTOR advice wrapped in climate alarmism, the high-time-preference speculators using intrinsically high-time-preference measurements and watermelons openly saying they want a zero nuclear future are not a reasonable source on the productivity metrics determining whether nuclear is a cost-effective power supply in itself.

>>95953990
Answer, now:
>And please do explain how €12/MWh operating costs for a MINIMUM of €20/MWh revenue is a loss.

>>95954042
>As in the source
Learn 2 read.

>Says the defender of "an operating loss can become a profit with a long enough period".
That would be you.

>The "source: my ass" graph demonstrates absolutely nothing relevant
Gonna be honest, you very obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking, so why do you think screeching this at me when I actually do is gonna change my mind? Do you think lying blatantly enough will somehow make it so your retarded worldview will supplant reality, or what?

>95954042
Bro thinks his made up numbers matter lmfao

>>95954059
>Learn 2 read.
Learn to cite relevant data instead of screeching about vague generalities from an abhorrent mess of a faux-metastudy undermining your point.

>That would be you.
No, my position is that they don't get privately funded because investors see the long lead-time and high capital costs as making it take too long for the operating profits to pay them back. Which is exactly the purpose of the "Net Present Value" metric used, as is "Weighted Average Cost of Capital".

>Gonna be honest, you very obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking
Demonstrate you have a clue by providing a counter-argument to the source stating a higher minimum revenue per megawatt-hour than the operating+fuel cost to produce via nuclear power. Because you seem to not understand basic economic concepts like "capital".

>>95954071
I did not make up the numbers for operating+fuel cost versus consumer cost payed for electricity. That's the source saying the plants cost less to produce electricity once set up than is payed for their output. Do you need a screenshot?

holy yap

>>95953928
Why'd you ignore maintenance costs?

>>95954104
>Learn to cite relevant data
You should, yeah.

>No, my position is that they don't get privately funded because
Because you're an idiot who can't read and has no idea what they're talking about, your position on that is irrelevant.

>Demonstrate you have a clue
You first lmao, you literally couldn't figure out how to use google and can't read the source material without getting confused. You didn't even know that 1GW nameplate capacity is average for nuclear power plants.

>>95950884
It really wasn't that common, we just got it from the jews. The Romans and Greeks practiced necromancy. The hero Odysseus does bloody necromancy. Cleomenes took political advice from a pickled head.

>>95953993
>>95954001
Add in extrapolation from how planar bleeds/rips work from Manual of the Planes and you get some neat inferences about how undead cause major problems not just for people but the material plane.
But here's the undead evil stuff.

>ANIMATING THE DEAD OR CREATING UNDEAD
Unliving corpses—corrupt mockeries of life and purity— are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit. Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.

Book of Vile Darkness, page 8

>Atrocity Calls to Unlife
Evil acts can resonate in multiple dimensions, opening cracks in reality and letting the blight creep in. A sufficiently heinous act may attract the attention of malicious spirits, bodiless and seeking to house themselves in flesh, especially recently vacated vessels. Such spirits are often little more than nodes of unquenchable hunger, wishing only to feed. These comprise many of the mindless undead. Sometimes these evil influences also manage to reinvigorate the decaying memories of the body’s former host. Thus, some semblance of the original personality and memories remain, though the newly awakened being is invariably twisted by the inhabiting spirit, resulting in an evil, twisted, and intelligent creature. However, this being is not truly inhabited by the spirit of the original creature, which has left to seek its ultimate destiny in the Outer Planes. This amalgamation is something entirely new.

Other times, atrocious deeds call dark, reanimating spirits into the fleshy form of the newly deceased, leaving the original spirit intact. This might happen if the person was already evil, or was tempted to evil in life. Alternatively, some good spirits might be unnaturally trapped within their bodies, slowly being perverted to evil as the dark spirits convert the body to undead status.

Libris Mortis, page 7

>>95954042
>The "source: my ass" graph
You've read the source though. You just clearly don't understand it.
It's a graph illustrating that even in ideal operating conditions, the example NPP would be at a net loss, and that's assuming incredibly generous operating costs, construction overhead, and decomm costs. You literally agreed with the source when you ignored the maintenance costs (I assume you couldn't figure out how to factor it in.) and

Let me break it down for you in simpler terms.
The overhead cost would be about 6-9b for a plant with a nameplace capacity of 1gw. You left out the cost of maintenance which is another 9-17mhw. If we're nice and assuming just 9 that's operating at a strict loss by your chosen metric, which use some of the most generous values possible. Weighted on a probability uncertainty charts, this adds up to being "Never profitable".

We teach this kind of stuff in highschool in my country. You should be ashamed that it needs to be explained to you so simply here, and I imagine you're not going to accept any explanation that disagrees with your dogma anyways, but this is how it works.

>>95953015
/thread

>>95954115
>Why'd you ignore maintenance costs?
I honestly don't take it entirely seriously due to the "source" being completely unconcerned with any differentiation among real reactors in its analysis in favor of a blanket "don't invest" citing a litany of watermelons and high-time-preference finance.

>>95954157
>You've read the source though.
The reason for saying "source: my ass" is that the graph was presented with the source of "own calculation" without any thought of the policy advice institute giving advice for policies to ameliorate the unfavorable inputs and potentially favorable inputs deliberately ignored.

>It's a graph illustrating that even in ideal operating conditions, the example NPP would be at a net loss
No, it's a graph illustrating that it would be an unsound investment because of an "expected" loss according to metrics DEFINED by increasing the valuation of capital costs and decreasing the valuation of long-tail revenue to integrate the time value of money, based exclusively on present variables piled together into one undifferentiated mass. All of this is unfavorable to nuclear power from things TRIVIALLY shown to be external to the technology itself, with such "risks" as the lead time being inflated by regulators changing requirements mid-project forcing significant chunks to be re-designed, re-certified, and re-built.

>>95954520
>I honestly don't take it entirely seriously due to the "source" being completely unconcerned with any differentiation among real reactors in its analysis
It uses averages from real reactors and then hedges costs towards the conservative side and potential incomes to the liberal side. This is a non-problem. There is also no point in using real reactors as you can look any of them up and crunch the numbers yourself to find that they don't actually turn a profit. It is a projection demonstrating that even in impossibly ideal conditions, nuclear energy is a poor investment that is almost certain to result in financial losses.

This isn't some kind of hidden piece of knowledge either. It's commonly known that Nuclear is all reliant upon subsidies and does not abide by free market demands. Without government aid, it would never be used. And you can find dozens of studies and investment agencies & news sources echoing similar sentiments.
https://reneweconomy.wpengine.com/csiro-aemo-study-says-wind-solar-and-storage-clearly-cheaper-than-coal-45724/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/opinion/nuclear-power-still-doesnt-make-much-sense.html
https://atomicinsights.com/why-cant-existing-nuclear-plants-make-money-in-todays-electricity-markets/
https://www.mr-sustainability.com/stories/2020/nuclear-power-2
https://blog.ucs.org/steve-clemmer/seven-things-people-got-wrong-with-ucs-nuclear-power-dilemma-report/

Even redditors know that nuclear power isn't good for turning a profit and that power plants regularly have to get bailed out.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/co4vrb/why_are_nuclear_plants_losing_money/

>The reason for saying "source: my ass" is that the graph was presented with the source of "own calculation"
And the basis for those calculations are given in the study. You did not read it.

>No, it's a graph illustrating that it would be an unsound investment because of an "expected" loss
Why did you say no and then repeat exactly what I said?

>>95954589
>Why did you say no and then repeat exactly what I said?
It's because he's a midwit who can't understand the word "theoretical" and thought electrical nameplate capacity meant something like daily production, and was too stupid to look it up beforehand so he could pretend to know what he was trying to discuss.

>>95953310
u sound like a massive faggot

>>95950815 (OP)
Ethically sourced undead is a thing?

>>95954858
Get SMITE'D, greymoralfag.

>>95951539
This type of thinking and modern perspective is why I hate modern fantasy. No one can put themselves in the shoes of fantasy dirt person or even write them properly anymore. It all sounds like something a vegan or communist would say to you on twitter.

>>95950815 (OP)
Why does this thread have 200 replies? We already have a "necromancy good" thread. Are you guys so fucking pathetic you have to discuss this same old boring topic in two threads? All retarded arguments for and against have been made before.

>>95950815 (OP)
In my setting necromancers and healers are the same thing. Just "necromancers" are using taboo spells that people frown upon. (using healing on the dead to control them and all.)

>>95951212
Unfortunately it's likely that anons that act such way towards the fictional concept of demons likely believe they're real and must be opposing them and what they believe is good like the cartoon caricatures of evil that they are. Imagine if they were this obtuse about any other concept in fiction like magic.

>>95951960
>These people populate all the worldbuilding threads on /tg/ and get very angry with anything that doesn't fit the version of a concept in their head, because it disrupts their identity. That's why they only argue in terms of their own headcanon and refuse to engage with any specific RPG or setting.
Funnily enough this applies to the people in this thread who simply cannot conceive of necromancy being anything but the same cookie cutter generic fantasy Evil. Usually being at the very least an anti-hero is part of the class fantasy of being a necromancer, if not outright a villain. I doubt the Cheap-Labormancer version that people are arguing for here is what people strongly identify with or think of.

>>95952213
So it would be evil for a small population to sustain themselves with long gone corpses? Or would it be better if a number of that population were serfs or slaves that spent their limited, living days toiling away?
It seems that the issue you're having with is is the hypothetical mass murder or unethical sourcing of corpses rather than the concept itself. Kingdoms have waged war for profit, for land, for resources, but this doesn't make these concepts evil by themselves, even if the ill intentioned will exploit their power to get more of them.

In antiquity sources we see that necromancy varied a lot, in their practices and ceremonies, such as having to please the spirit through week long rituals, or that the spirit must be summoned within 12 months of the after the person's death or it would "evoke the deceased's ghostly spirit instead".
The assumptions that we take when worldbuilding around this will inevitably make the concept more evil or less in practice, you could imagine certain aspects of it being specific to your setting that would move the needle either way (The spirit must willingly give permission and is explicitly not inside the body, the body must have been under the earth for decades, they are so limited to only be good for violence, their spirit resides in the body and can escape with ease, they require being grafted with spare muscle to be useful first, etc).

>>95953131
>Human beings have the value of being human.
Weird that throughout of history people in power disagreed with that and they haven't been humbled by God.

>>95955433
Cheaplabormancer WAS the cookie cutter necromancer for a while. Every time there was a "DAE good necromancers?!?!!?!?!!?!??!" there would be flocks of annoying as fuck necro industrialists flooding the discussion to jerk themselves off over how smart and enlightened and not like "others" they are. This also made discussion of any other potential non-evil necromancer impossible because those "people", for all their "enlightenment", were extremely hostile to ideas that are not their pet concept, as if anonymous posting on a shithole imageboard is some sort of high school popularity contest.
I do not fault anons for having such a visceral reaction. Labormancers ARE, in the purest sense of this word, Reddit.

>>95950815 (OP)
It's less because of the idea and more because of the kind of person who'd come up with it.

If we’re talking about why animating corpses to work as cheap labor is a bad thing, then The Death Gate Cycle had a decent explanation.
>be Sartans (a magical race of human offshoots awakened by a nuclear war)
>decide that Earth (planet) kinda fucking sucks and split the world into several new ones
>Earth (classical element), Fire, Water, Air, a prison for their enemies, and a central hub to control it all
>shit goes wrong and the new worlds end up isolated and only barely functional
>in the Earth world, the Sartans turn to necromancy to provide manual labor after the regular humans, elves, and dwarves (elves and dwarves also re-emerged after the nuclear war for some reason) they brought with them die because they couldn’t handle the toxic fumes
>this works fine for generations
>except not really
>you see, the Sartan method of necromancy involves chaining the deceased’s soul to their corpse
>which requires an equivalent exchange of sorts; for every soul that is kept from passing on properly, another one is taken in its stead
>so the Earth-world Sartans, without knowing, have been killing Sartans from the Air, Water, and Fire worlds every time they reanimated a corpse
>also, the corpse must be allowed to rest for a couple of days before being reanimated,otherwise, you end up with a sapient, almost indestructible super-zombie who can use magic and has been driven omnicidally insane by their tortured existence
The third book ends with a magical zombie outbreak, as the book’s deuteragonist, a sympathetic young necromancer driven mad by grief, reanimates his fiancée only minutes after she dies. She then kills him and reanimates him (he is now, for some reason, the only super-zombie who isn't hostile toward the living), and then she rampages across the Earth-world’s last remaining major city, killing and reanimating Sartans. This triggers a chain reaction of super-zombies killing people and reanimating them as more super-zombies, until almost everyone in the city is dead.

>>95950815 (OP)
>offended
No, bored. You're boring. A boring, basic reddit contrarian. You and your trite subversions are not nearly ss clever as you think you are.

>>95954143
Bronze age necromancy wasn't raising skeletons and shooting necrotic blasts, retard. Just like bronze age pyromancy wasn't flinging fireballs and giving people the ol' spicy hands.

>>95954143
>The Romans and Greeks practiced necromancy. The hero Odysseus does bloody necromancy
You know that ancient Greek necromancy had more in common with what we would call a seance than the modern fantasy flavor of reanimating the dead necromancy? Calling up ghosts of the dead so that one could communicate with them, whether that be to gain information or placate angry spirits.

>>95954922
It's a mod thread.

>>95951682
Yeah, we tried doing that 'zombie farmhand' thing after a necromancer convinced us to buy a score of em. They were useless. They have no intelligence of their own and unluss you have someone following them around guiding their every action, they just mindlessly do the last thing you told them to. You want them to repair that drystone wall? They just keep stackig stones in a haphazard heap. You want them to dig a ditch? They just keep digging with no plan or idea of what they are doing until you have a ditch running out the farm, over the hill and through the Local Lord's vineyard. Or they just dig straight down until the hole collapses and buries them. Horses, cattle and sheep fear them and nobody will buy my zombie reared pork because my pigs keep eating the zombie's legs. Cant even put them in a field to scare crows off the crops, as their rotting meat attract even more, that strip them down to skeletons and then scoff all my seed. Half my workers and familiy have gone down with diseases that I am sure is because of all the rotting fly infested flesh dropping off everywhere they go. The farm stinks like a charnel pit now. Fucking useless the lot of them, I'm sure that Necromancer cast a charm spell on me to make me agree to it.

>>95954900
get PWND lawfag

>>95950815 (OP)
The problem you have is easily resolved when we look at your personal alignment chart (as a player). Most people are Lawful Neutral, you're Neutral Evil.
You're ideal lich material.