Necromancy is Not Necessarily Death Magic.

[Magical Mudcrab]

I don't think achieving Necromancy via means other than true Death magic is actually a retcon even in terms of the cosmology map in Chronicle Vol. 1. Regardless of how you achieve the end, the use of Necromancy still affects the machinery of Death as a primordial essence or state - the use of Necromancy prevents the natural cycle from occurring (e.g. a deceased soul traveling to Oribos to be judged and sent to its assigned afterlife in the Shadowlands of Death). It is in that sense that both Necromancy and Undeath fall under the umbrella of Death, not in the sense that Necromancy requires Death magic to perform. It also underscores that Necromancy as an art was created by denizens to reside within the realms of Death (namely the Necrolords of Maldraxxus) - but as Sin'dane relates to us, while they created the process of Necromancy, the means to achieve it isn't unique to Death. Similarly, there's an elemental distinction for Fire in the cosmology, but flame itself can be created by a variety of essences including Arcane, Fel, and even via the Light.

If it were just that Chronicle had said Necromancy is most closely associated with Death magic, or something similar, I would agree; however, Chronicle is fairly specific:

Life and Death
The forces of Lifer and Death hold sway over every living thing in the physical universe. The energies of Life, commonly known as nature magic, promote growth and renewal in all things. Death, in the form of necromantic magic, acts as a counterbalance to Life. It is an unavoidable force that breeds despair in mortal hearts and pushes everything towards a state of entropic decay and eventual oblivion.

The above excerpt is basically saying that Nature magic is Life magic, and that Necromantic magic (Necromancy) is Death magic; Nature magic pulls from the Life domain as a source, Necromancy pulls from the Death domain as a source. This is reinforced by the cosmological chart:



Now, the cosmological chart isn't perfect. For instance, we can see that the Shadowlands is given a similar relation to Azeroth that the Emerald Dream has, and the Titans themselves created the Emerald Dream. Nowadays, we know that the Shadowlands is the universes realm of Death and is (likely) the source of Death magic. We also see that this chart has an elemental type which is not encountered in game, such as Decay, and the chart is not inclusive to all elemental types we know of, excluding more esoteric beings like Murmur, a Sound elemental. That said, the chart is fairly clear in its relation of types of magic and beings associated with them. If we broke a few down:
- The Light is the source of Holy magic and is the native plane of the Naaru.
- Disorder is the source of Fel magic and is the native plane of Demons (The Burning Legion).
- Shadow is the source of Shadow (Void) magic and is the native plane of the Old Gods.
- Death is the source of Necromantic magic (Necromancy) and is the native plane of the Undead.

We run into this problem where Necromancy and Undeath are now decoupled from Death. It's a weird situation because, if we acknowledge the Chronicle cosmological chart as still being canon, it implies that Fel magic and Demons might not have a close association with Disorder or Titans and the Arcane might not have a close association with Order. This isn't to say that beings of a given type are always tightly coupled, as state transitions between these forces do exist, allowing beings from one force being able to transition to another. An example of this could be Sargeras and the Dreadlords taking in Fel magic and becoming demonic entities or Naaru becoming Dark Naaru or Void Gods if sufficiently drained of Light magic (although exceedingly rare). Similarly, state transitions can also occur to mortals. Mortals can be raised as undead, mutated into void creatures, undergo apotheosis to become demons, or infuse themselves with the Light.

The TL;DR would be that one of two things must be true about Chronicle, given the new lore we have:
1) Some of the Cosmological chart is not accurate (which is already true in some cases) because the new information we have about Necromancy breaks the pattern which exists for every cosmic force.
2) All of the Cosmological chart is not accurate and there is no tight coupling of sources of magic, types of magic, and extraplanar races.

[A Chozo]

The TL;DR would be that one of two things must be true about Chronicle, given the new lore we have:
1) Some of the Cosmological chart is not accurate because the new information we have about Necromancy breaks the pattern which exists for every cosmic force.
2) All of the Cosmological chart is not accurate and there is no tight coupling of sources of magic, types of magic, and extraplanar races.

Both could be accurate depending on the perspective of who's saying the information. It's what everyone in the thread is telling you, with other words. Aucald is right, the connection is there through the influence in the Souls that should go to the Shadowlands. Hell he could totally be correct on the Necrolords creating Necromancy altogether. Chronicles could call Death "Necromantic Magic" specifically because it's magic, for the most part, does necromantic stuff - animate the unliving flesh. Or it's the literal use of the word: Magic that communicates with the dead. The very act of necromancy through other means could totally fall under the Death umbrella. Do not limit yourself to the color coding, it strips the credibility out of the discussion when we limit ourselves like that.

But if you must chose one of your two options, go with the first one - the Twisting Nether itself is tremendously important to the lore and it's not even properly mentioned there.

edit: just had an thought. If I cause Disorder through Death Magic, is it Necromancy or Demonic fuckery?

- - - Updated - - -

Magic types (such as Death magic) are tools, and the spell schools (such as necromancy) are what you can do with said tools.

Huh, this explains all of this quite elegantly. Nice one!

[Loreth88]

Technically they got screwed by Dark Elves. It's their magic that's driving the undeath. So it's the Lore of Shadow that branched into the Lore of Death.

But yes, vastly cooler than 'anything can be necromancy if you try hard enough'.

Yeah, i think they do that because this expansion is over, they don't really care about it anymore so everything can be necromancy a lazy solution, they don't need to create an order for it. If one of the future expansion concept draw around death again and necromancy, they just pick up a holy retcon pencil and do it.

[Aucald]

The TL;DR would be that one of two things must be true about Chronicle, given the new lore we have:
1) Some of the Cosmological chart is not accurate (which is already true in some cases) because the new information we have about Necromancy breaks the pattern which exists for every cosmic force.
2) All of the Cosmological chart is not accurate and there is no tight coupling of sources of magic, types of magic, and extraplanar races.

I think people take the cosmology chart way more strictly than it was likely intended since it was more or less designed to be a basic outline of the cosmological forces and not an exhaustive nor a chart that covers all the complexities and interrelations of magic in the Warcraft universe. The statement about Death/Necromancy and Life/Nature is quite true when talking about these forces as essentially polar or diametrically opposed to one another - as befits their placement on the chart. But that by no means implies or requires that Necromancy cannot come about from any other essence than Death, simply that such interplays may not fulfill the same diametric roles. The truest expression of Necromancy comes from Death, as the very creators of Necromancy (the Necrolords) dwell in the domain of Death, and fuel their Necromantic magic with the power of Death. But, again, Death isn't the only fuel for Necromancy as we've seen time and time again, both prior to and following Chronicle.

[username993720]

I find it unlikely that the Zandalari didn't at least dabble with that shit. Zul'Gurub, Zul'Farak, Zul'Aman and Naz'mir are steeped in necromancy (which apparently counts as Necromancy™ now) and all of that preceded the Great Sundering.

Again, the Dreadlords have existed for millenia before life on Azeroth even sprang. They've infiltrated the other cosmic forces when the universe was still young.

Were they?

At least the first recounted one.
If you're thinking of Galakrond, we still don't know what magic he was associated with.

That's weird. Could have sworn Galakrond made undead proto-dragons. Which by definition given to us is the animation of dead bodies. Also weird because Valkyr existed before the war of the ancients and Helya had her undead vrykul. Perhaps you should consider a novel from almost two decades ago didn't plan for the expansion of lore and new stuff has been added.

We don't know what kind of magic Galakrond was "using".
Kvaldir are spirits and Valkyr are ascended Vrykul.

Oh really now?

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Helya

And done by Agent of Order no less, by the way.

Did what?

[DatToffer]

Because that's like saying "sword" and "swordplay" are the same thing. Magic types (such as Death magic) are tools, and the spell schools (such as necromancy) are what you can do with said tools.

But one word can have several meanings. You can even have Necromancy with capital N be about Death magic and necromancy be about the practice if that's too confusing.

[cparle87]

But the engineer's pocket knife can 'reanimate' a player that's been dead for months. Where is the line drawn?

That's what's known as gameplay and story segregation. We can come back from the dead simply by walking to our bodies or clicking release. It's not nearly as easy in the game, with only a handful of resurrections not involving beings with that kind of power. Same with hearthstones. Every player begins with one in their bags. Varian saw the one Jaina gave Anduin and said he'd never seen one before, thinking they were just myths from stories about mages and elves.

[Gaidax]

Did what?

Odyn killed and then raised Helya as first Val'kyr before Dreadlords on Azeroth were even a thing. She in turn created Vrykul.

Dreadlords were most definitely not the first to employ Necromancy in Azeroth.

[Iain]

Same with hearthstones. Every player begins with one in their bags. Varian saw the one Jaina gave Anduin and said he'd never seen one before, thinking they were just myths from stories about mages and elves.

That could have been an epic prank run on Varian though.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, i think they do that because this expansion is over, they don't really care about it anymore so everything can be necromancy a lazy solution, they don't need to create an order for it. If one of the future expansion concept draw around death again and necromancy, they just pick up a holy retcon pencil and do it.

Indeed. What also bothers me is that we just had an entire realm of the Shadowlands devoted to necromancy. Maldraxxus is specifically about reviving corpses and flesh, Maldraxxus is necromancy. So what is it that's Maldraxxus is based on? They're clearly not devoted to exploring all the various ways you can revive a corpse through magic. They're not using frost, fire, nature or light magic to revive corpses.

"Maldraxxus is the birthplace of necromantic magic."
https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/shadowlands#world


What magic is that?

And before the discussion starts from scratch, I totally accept you can use any magic to revive a corpse. But why can't there be a necromantic magic in and of itself if Blizzard themselves are so insistent on calling it that?

- - - Updated - - -

The above excerpt is basically saying that Nature magic is Life magic, and that Necromantic magic (Necromancy) is Death magic; Nature magic pulls from the Life domain as a source, Necromancy pulls from the Death domain as a source. This is reinforced by the cosmological chart:

Yes. So that makes this Zin'Dane's bit of exposition more of a retcon than Blizzard intended it to be.

[shade3891]

Necromancy is the act of returning something back to life. It doesnt matter if the source of power is light, fire, void, shadow, fel, death, etc..

By the way, Players resurect all the time, by multiple means... Yes I mean you when you died again by standing in fire.

[username993720]

Odyn killed and then raised Helya as first Val'kyr before Dreadlords on Azeroth were even a thing. She in turn created Vrykul.

Dreadlords were most definitely not the first to employ Necromancy in Azeroth.

"When she spoke out against Odyn, he forcefully transformed her into the first of the spectral Val'kyr, tasked with bringing the souls of fallen vrykul to the keeper's Halls of Valor to become his Valarjar champions"

Doesn't sound like she was raised from the dead.
Again, Odyn was trying to mimic what he saw of the Shadowlands, specifically the Kyrian, where the Dreadlords hail from.
So, Dreadlords definitely precede him in Necromancy.

[Gaidax]

"When she spoke out against Odyn, he forcefully transformed her into the first of the spectral Val'kyr, tasked with bringing the souls of fallen vrykul to the keeper's Halls of Valor to become his Valarjar champions"

Doesn't sound like she was raised from the dead.
Again, Odyn was trying to mimic what he saw of the Shadowlands, specifically the Kyrian, where the Dreadlords hail from.
So, Dreadlords definitely precede him in Necromancy.

Believe what you will, expert on Necromancy.

Here is another example for you, as others mentioned: https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Galakrond



Also WAY long before any Dreadlords in Azeroth.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Not-living

[Progenitor Aquarius]

You can see the suffering of the forsaken that have been raised by necromancy and those who have been just brought to life. There is a difference, and I wouldn’t dwell on it too much. It might be the effect of bad writing or just a point of view from a Maldraxian guy. Even from a cosmic chart perspective, it looks clearly illogical to have other forces involved. There are plenty of sources on the internet that indicate what necromancy really is, and I'd rather stick to the old definition, because it’s safe.

[Morgomir]

I distinctly remember Krasus reanimating a dead goblin with Life magic to have it lead Krasus to Neltharion's lair. War of the Ancients trilogy, so if this is a "retcon" its a VERY old retcon

[Shadowferal]

The TL;DR would be that one of two things must be true about Chronicle, given the new lore we have:

I'd say "Whichever agrees with the narrative being pushed at any given time" is always accurate.

Imo that chart was a big mistake.

[Iain]

Necromancy is the act of returning something back to life. It doesnt matter if the source of power is light, fire, void, shadow, fel, death,

And also 'necromantic magic', the magic that is borne out of Maldraxxus.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say "Whichever agrees with the narrative being pushed at any given time" is always accurate.

Danuser is probably chuckling over a cappuccino while browsing this thread.

But one word can have several meanings. You can even have Necromancy with capital N be about Death magic and necromancy be about the practice if that's too confusing.

I would very much prefer that, but Blizzard isn't bothering with such a distinction themselves.

[Loreth88]

Indeed. What also bothers me is that we just had an entire realm of the Shadowlands devoted to necromancy. Maldraxxus is specifically about reviving corpses and flesh, Maldraxxus is necromancy. So what is it that's Maldraxxus is based on? They're clearly not devoted to exploring all the various ways you can revive a corpse through magic. They're not using frost, fire, nature or light magic to revive corpses.

"Maldraxxus is the birthplace of necromantic magic."
https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/shadowlands#world


What magic is that?

And before the discussion starts from scratch, I totally accept you can use any magic to revive a corpse. But why can't there be a necromantic magic in and of itself if Blizzard themselves are so insistent on calling it that?.

Sad thing about that, they will not explain anything now, they just let it go, forget. They not build this whole world just open and open new chapters with a little connections between them.

[loras]

What's up with so much discussion about this topic anyway?
Back in classic it was known Kel'thuzad initially used arcane magic, and the trolls in Stranglethorn used some alchemic / nature / shadow stuff, whereas the trolls in Tanaris were happy using some unholy stuff.
Then in TBC we see fel doing it, literally just a dead pit lord's blood resurrects a dragon. Oh and the void naaru? Countless dead souls flock to it, and plenty of things are reanimated with its power. Hell even Murmur may have resurrected some of the spirits, and he's the one true god an elemental!
Then in WotLK we see death and void openlu struggling (black dragons vs. scourge, saronite in frostmourne's chamber, Ulduar's deathless armies ready to strike Ice rown, Shadowmourne's creation), but as we've later seen they have no issue resurrecting or necromantising the dead (N'zoth with Aszhara, AU Ner'zhul). Of course we see Bolvar's partial resurrection through life-dragonfire as well. And then at some point during BfA the light shows it can do necromancy as well.

Soooo... how is this a retcon again? At worst people can complain that the alternative media are shown to play second fiddle to the game yet again. As it should; they're crap enough writers with just one medium, adding more only makes it worse (Hello Med'an, hello raptor army).

[username993720]

Believe what you will, expert on Necromancy.

Here is another example for you, as others mentioned: https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Galakrond



Also WAY long before any Dreadlords in Azeroth.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Not-living

I told you we don't know what Galakrond's corruption was from. It is hinted that he was experimented upon by titanic watchers, like the creatures in Uldir.

It would have been the first case of necromancy on Azeroth if the Dreadlors haven't delved in it within the Shadowlands for billions of years prior.

[Aydinx2]

I don't get why anyone would think otherwise.
Necromancy = raising the dead. How you do it is not relevant.