>There are sentient undead in the form of wights, mummies, and
>liches. There are also mummy undead (and possibly wights, I'm
>not intimately familiar with greater undead) that a
>necromancer can summon and control. Are we to believe they
>are mere constructs? Or, based on race, are they
>semi-sentient, but clearly bound to servitude? Are Entropy
>necro's not allowed to raise undead? Are they only allowed
>lesser undead?

Perhaps greater undead serve willingly. As far as I know, they never attack the necromancer. Beastmasters call wolves, bears, and snakes to aid them but I don't consider it enslavement.


>An Entropy AP is clearly binding pieces of other people's soul
>to servitude in his axe. I'm not sure how you would make any
>other argument about what is happening there... Is an Entropy
>AP not to make an unholy weapon as it conflicts with the
>abosolute freedom doctrine?

Stealing of someone's power isn't the same as robbing someone of their free will. Their will remains their own. If their dogma prevented them from doing this, then it could also be argued that they don't have the right to kill and loot their opponents without their express permission.


>The lore of CF says Chaos Mages made deals with demons, and
>called them to serve them in the war with the Order mages.
>Are Entropists, who study Chaos magic, just ignoring that
>piece of CF Lore?

The Chaos Mages may have made deals with demons and called them to serve, but that doesn't necessarily mean Entropy condones it now. Chaos is not worship of freedom, the Chaos Mages of old were not Entropy and clearly the two would have disagreed on this subject.


>There are writing in Khardath's planar sanctum on conjurations
>and bindings. Specifically that the bindings are not
>subversion of will, which fits with the mechanics since
>forcing a servitor to do things they don't like causes them to
>turn, but rather to assuage the pain of being off their home
>plane (or something similar). Is that ####? If it is, where
>is the authoritative version of what is going on? Outlanders
>have their beliefs on the matter, and Fort has a slightly
>different but very similar view which is why you can't hardly
>play a Fort conjie without getting #### about it, and yet
>another cabal echoing those same beliefs seems like it is
>somehow given and not up for debate IC. At that point, why
>even have conjurers?

Khardath might have spent time trying to justify his enslavement process due to guilt and delusion. The fact that conjurations sometimes say, "I will not bow down to you, mortal!" somewhat lends to the fact that the Outlanders are right on the matter.


>Finally, if Entropy has this as their "guiding" principle,
>what is the difference, especially for evil characters,
>between playing Entropy and Outlander? I could easily see,
>say evil invoker, making a strong case to be in both cabals.
>It isn't like they couldn't attack other Entropist's for
>breaking Outlander dogma and vice versa. Why have two cabals
>fill essentially the same niche with the only real difference
>being the inclusion or exclusion of certain classes based on
>nature vs. magic?

The Sphere of Magic resides in opposition to Nature at the edges of the World. As the channeling of supernatural forces, the use of (non-divine) Magic can often reverse or upend the course of Nature and often has hidden costs to those that serve as conduit to its power. This seems at least as contrast Tribunal and Empire.

All in all, if you're not willing to RP it in game, then it shouldn't change. If everyone who wanted to change the course of the game could do so with posts, eventually we'd have every race and every class in every cabal. I know you presented a fairly good case for conjurers to get into Entropy and it wasn't nonsense but ^there's my reasoning for conjurers to remain out of Entropy. None of it is nonsense. If you want to change it, bring those arguments in game where. Deed has always had a greater affect than words.