Necromancy is Not Necessarily Death Magic.

[Loreth88]

See there a catch, leave way for that story "But Dreanor was not free, we were manipulated to drink demon blood, we not at fault!"; and as long kids look and read story about undeads that look like fluffy plushies, it all looks like cartoon with ketchup.

Very strange terms "Genocide" and "War crimes" for medieval world with magic where cannibals and rapists are part of your faction, only to try teach these kids some modern problems while they play our peg+12 game. And then Blood Elfs ... left Alliance since some old grandpa went crazy racist on them -> what they do? join faction that full of racists, perfectio; and as if it was not enough later Nightborne race representative says they gonna remain neutral -> later they join Horde and join in into massacre versus their linage, why not kill some of their own with nice orcs that doing it for "honor", Sadfang crying 24/7 how honorable warrior he is, only to throw axe at behind of someone else enemy. comedygold.

Like disney sell sex for the kids in disguise, South Park have a very good episode on that case
Sylvanas look like that because its salable, and ppl can shout Queen, if she look like a real undead her fan base will be thine. and you show someone who don't know who or what she is they will think she is a drow, not an undead elf.
Everything for the business and money, nothing new here, but from that money they can improve the game more. (they will don't)
I like your style btw.

[Iain]

Imagine being an archeologist in the year 6022 and you just found a beautifully preserved toy like that but without any further context.

[loras]

See there a catch, leave way for that story "But Dreanor was not free, we were manipulated to drink demon blood, we not at fault!"; and as long kids look and read story about undeads that look like fluffy plushies, it all looks like cartoon with ketchup.

Very strange terms "Genocide" and "War crimes" for medieval world with magic where cannibals and rapists are part of your faction, only to try teach these kids some modern problems while they play our peg+12 game. And then Blood Elfs ... left Alliance since some old grandpa went crazy racist on them -> what they do? join faction that full of racists, perfectio; and as if it was not enough later Nightborne race representative says they gonna remain neutral -> later they join Horde and join in into massacre versus their linage, why not kill some of their own with nice orcs that doing it for "honor", Sadfang crying 24/7 how honorable warrior he is, only to throw axe at behind of someone else enemy. comedygold.

Did you really just try to compare rape to genocide?
Rape is so hard to prove that only our cultural hysteria can elevate it to anything beyond injury, meanwhile murder and death are pretty straightforward when it comes to figuring out whether it has happened.

[Ielenia]

Taught necromancy to Galakrond?

No. The magic he was infused with would give us the hint.
It's not about individuals. It's about the cosmic forces being used.

No, it's about other powers using necromancy before denizens of the Shadowlands (i.e. the Nathrezim) even came to Azeroth.

- - - Updated - - -

In the semantic sense you're entirely correct. Fully granted. Any time someone reanimates a corpse, it's 'necromancy'.

But Blizzard also says that 'necromantic magic' is something that's born in Maldraxxus

New lore supersedes old lore. The cosmic chart and the website are over a year old. Sin'dane's words are only a few months old. Therefore what the chart and the website say should no longer be considered "canon lore" if they go against what the more recent information that Sin'dane gave us says.

- - - Updated - - -

The confusion comes in with the original cosmological chart in Chronicle, which puts Necromancy as having a similar relationship to Death that magics like Fel and Nature magic have to Discord and Life.

Yes, but that's the thing. When we have two conflicting pieces of information in an ever-evolving story, the new information supersedes the old information. In this case, what Sin'dane says trumps what the chart and Chronicles say because that's the newest information.

Unless, of course, Blizzard later goes on to say otherwise, but at that point it'll be the same case: new information supplanting old information.

[Iain]

New lore supersedes old lore.

Also known as a 'retcon'.

The cosmic chart and the website are over a year old. Sin'dane's words are only a few months old. Therefore what the chart and the website say should no longer be considered "canon lore" if they go against what the more recent information that Sin'dane gave us says.

Does this mean Maldraxxus is no longer the birthplace of necromantic magic? One comment from a NPC is enough to invalidate the entire ontological system WoW was based on?

I mean, I'm perfectly willing to run with letting the latest source of information supersede everything that went before it. But there's more than words being shifted here. It's not quite the same as having N'zoth whisper you cryptic poetry while you're in the Emerald Nightmare. Seems like such a cheap and shoddy way to handle the lore.

[username993720]

No, it's about other powers using necromancy before denizens of the Shadowlands (i.e. the Nathrezim) even came to Azeroth.

Why do they need to come to Azeroth first?
They literally infiltrated the other cosmic forces before anything even happened on that planet.

[Shadowferal]

New lore supersedes old lore. The cosmic chart and the website are over a year old. Sin'dane's words are only a few months old. Therefore what the chart and the website say should no longer be considered "canon lore" if they go against what the more recent information that Sin'dane gave us says.

My earlier post of whatever narrative being pushed at any given time seems spot on.

[Ielenia]

Why do they need to come to Azeroth first?

Who said anything about them coming to Azeroth first?

You're putting words in my proverbial mouth that I didn't use. I never claimed "the Nathrezim would come to Azeroth first".

- - - Updated - - -

Also known as a 'retcon'.

*shrug*

Wouldn't be the first time, or the second, or the third time that happened.

Does this mean Maldraxxus is no longer the birthplace of necromantic magic?

"Necromantic magic" can mean death magic. "Necromancy" and "necromantic", much like "human" and "humanoid", aren't necessarily the same thing.

[Iain]

"Necromantic magic" can mean death magic. "Necromancy" and "necromantic", much like "human" and "humanoid", aren't necessarily the same thing.

But 'death' is not an actual school of magic.

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

And if you mean that any magic that involves corpses is now considered death magic and any magic can be used for necromancy then any magic that is used for necromancy is also death magic which means that 'necromantic magic can be death magic' is too broad. It's 'necromantic magic is death magic' which now makes it, and Sin'dane's remark redundant.

Unless you want to bring back the chart, in which 'necromantic' holds a significant status equal to Arcane, Nature and Fel. By all means, that's still how I see it, but also why I suspect that Blizzard was trying to make a point but formulated it in a way that unintentionally and unnecessarily vandalises their own lore.

Decoupling 'necromancy' from 'death' so other forms of magic can apply to it and making that a formal explanation is fine. But destroying the whole idea of necromantic energy in the process has got to be attributed to (at this point rather typical) clumsiness.

[Ielenia]

But 'death' is not an actual school of magic.

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

And I never said it is, so I don't know where this statement came from.

And if you mean that any magic that involves corpses is now considered death magic

Again, I never said that.

and any magic can be used for necromancy then any magic that is used for necromancy is also death magic

No. Once again, I never said that. Nature magic used to raise the dead is still nature magic. Just like fel magic used to create fire is still fel magic.

It's 'necromantic magic is death magic' which now makes it, and Sin'dane's remark redundant.

Literally no one is saying that. Especially not me. To make matters worse for you, the whole point of my post is to point out that "necromancy" and "death magic" are not the same thing.

[username993720]

Who said anything about them coming to Azeroth first?

You're putting words in my proverbial mouth that I didn't use. I never claimed "the Nathrezim would come to Azeroth first".

So, what's with your claim that others used necromancy before them?

[Ielenia]

So, what's with your claim that others used necromancy before them?

They developed it on their own. That happens. It's similar to "convergent evolution" where two separate and independent species develop the same trait, such as bats and dolphins both developing echo-location.

[Iain]

And I never said it is, so I don't know where this statement came from.


Again, I never said that.


No. Once again, I never said that. Nature magic used to raise the dead is still nature magic. Just like fel magic used to create fire is still fel magic.


Literally no one is saying that. Especially not me. To make matters worse for you, the whole point of my post is to point out that "necromancy" and "death magic" are not the same thing.

If death isn't a school of magic then what is 'death magic'?

[Saltysquidoon]

I think that it's an interesting premise to move necromancy away from the DnD staple of 'it's always inherently evil' which is a frankly limiting perspective. Lore wise it's one of the better things blizzard has done in a long while.

Now sure it's being done to retroactively explain what the fuck calia even is and to hand wave her being installed as the leader of the forsaken, despite not being forsaken. But hey at least it's two steps forward, one step back instead of the reverse.

[Deneios]

Perfectly good gust of wind could be considered necromancy since it could be used to reanimate dead.
Puppeting a corpse and raising a corpse from the grave that can act on its own are 2 different things.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Yes, but that's the thing. When we have two conflicting pieces of information in an ever-evolving story, the new information supersedes the old information. In this case, what Sin'dane says trumps what the chart and Chronicles say because that's the newest information.

Unless, of course, Blizzard later goes on to say otherwise, but at that point it'll be the same case: new information supplanting old information.

I don't think it's just a matter of conflicting evidence, but of conflicting meta-accounts of what is reliable evidence. For its time, Chronicle was marketed as a source of truth - everything in it should be taken as is and would not be changed. Later, when it was changed to be the perspective of the Titans because Blizzard realized that marketing Chronicle in the way they did was a bad idea, it became a fallible source of information which was subject to change; however, people are still holding on to the original intent behind Chronicle. I agree that we're at a point where we should just accept retcons are going to happen, if not just because Shadowlands was predicated on a slough of retcons to the Warcraft 3 story and the Legion overall, but it's understandable that people are going to have difficulties letting go, especially since some books are being retconned within the same year of their publication (for instance, Chronicle released in 2016 and Calia's resurrection by the Light was within about a year, which directly contradicted it). We're in a situation where we have some people who are legitimately confused, which is understandable, and people who want to outright rejecting the changes out of frustration.

Something we also need to keep in mind is how much old novels, like the War of the Ancients trilogy, damaged the online discourse. Even today, over a decade since we've found out how powerful the Titans are, you will still occasionally find people appealing to quotes from the War of the Ancients to try and convey the power of an Old God (i.e.: the quotes from Krasus). Considering that Chronicle was supposed to be a much more reliable source of truth, we're probably going to see confusion far into the future. I wouldn't be surprised if in two or three expansions there were still ongoing questions about changes from Chronicle and that the very question of necromancy was brought up again in the future.

Note: Obviously, this isn't me saying "people should reject the change", just that Blizzard really needs to start getting their ducks in a row before publishing a deluge of contradicting sources that fragment the story and introduce confusion.

- - - Updated - - -

If death isn't a school of magic then what is 'death magic'?

Magic that uses "death" as its source of power.
Is this ambiguous? Yes.
Will this ever be elaborated on? Maybe, people can say if this has been elaborated on before.

Chronicle outlined each cosmic force as being a source of the power (such as death) and a type of magic used to express that power (such as necromancy). This is no longer canonical for necromancy, but it may still be canonical for other types of magic that were given the same relation to a cosmic force (such as fel magic's relation to disorder). This is possibly subject to change, although I would say it's likely this solely affects death (and maybe life and nature because Eonar and Golganneth had nature-related powers).

[Iain]

Note: Obviously, this isn't me saying "people should reject the change", just that Blizzard really needs to start getting their ducks in a row before publishing a deluge of contradicting sources that fragment the story and introduce confusion.

This. This is exactly why I can't keep picking at this scab. The nature of necromancy is a silly, frivolous debate of course. But the way Blizzard went about something seemingly trivial seems to indicate that the authors themselves lack a single source of truth.

See, the way to responsibly handle a fictional universe, is to build it on top of immutable truths. Axioms that apply to everything in the setting. These axioms are meant to be kept secret, far away from the prying eyes of the fans. The fans only get to see the tip of the iceberg. It can be an inaccurate, unreliable representation of what's actually going on, it can conflict with what other iceberg tips are telling them. But these tips are still attached to massive icebergs deep beneath the surface.

Games Workshop does this. There are like three veteran authors that hold a manuscript/encyclopedia with all the hard cats in the 40k universe. But that information is a strictly guarded secret, even more junior authors don't get to know it. Whenever a 40k author has an idea, they will have to get it vetted by this council of senior authors to make sure it remains consistent to this secret canon.

Blizzard quite evidently doesn't have such a system in place. They may plan their expansions far ahead, but the story itself is ad hoc, and then these types of expositions, even just a few sentences, can cause a rippling effect that damage, if not collapse perfectly good lore that was established beforehand.

[username993720]

They developed it on their own. That happens. It's similar to "convergent evolution" where two separate and independent species develop the same trait, such as bats and dolphins both developing echo-location.

So, Azerothian necromancy is not the same as other necromancy? They don't pull it from one of the cosmic forces?

[Aucald]

If death isn't a school of magic then what is 'death magic'?

I tend to think of the distinction as fuel vs. application. Death magic or essence is the "fuel" that is derived from the domain or primordial sphere of Death. Necromancy is more an application of said fuel, in this case, the application or process of reanimating a previously dead entity into a state of undeath. You can swap out Death magic with a number of other fuels to achieve the same basic application, albeit with varying results - you still wind up with an undead subject if properly applied, but as we've seen the presentation can be quite different. Undeath via Death magic is probably the most "natural" way to go about it - and the undead dwelling in Maldraxxus are a natural manifestation within the realm, as strange as that might sound to us. Necromancy fueled with the other essences like Arcane, Light, and Shadow tends to be more unnatural, and often creates undead beings where they ought not to be (such as in the physical universe), more a perversion of the Death/Necromancy/Undead relationship seen in Maldraxxus.

[Iain]

I tend to think of the distinction as fuel vs. application. Death magic or essence is the "fuel" that is derived from the domain or primordial sphere of Death. Necromancy is more an application of said fuel, in this case, the application or process of reanimating a previously dead entity into a state of undeath.

That's already very close to how I see things.

Where I would expand upon, at least in my head canon, is that death magic would be the crude oil, necromantic energy the refined fuel, and then necromancy being the application on which the fuel is spent.

That intermediary part is important. It doesn't deny that Necromancy is also still reanimating the dead by any means, and it certainly doesn't invalidate the possibility to reanimate the dead (after all, you can use various fuels to keep an engine running, provided it's not too picky), which literally is necromancy, through other schools of magic.

All it does is keep the existence of necromantic essence alive in the game. And then it makes sense that Maldraxxus is a well-spring of necromantic essence, ready to use to conveniently raise the dead at will. Maldraxxus would be an ecosystem living on top of the realm of death, consuming it and freeing up its essence in more convenient substances.

It feels as though Blizzard is invalidating that last part, even though they clearly presented 'necromantic' as a material property onto itself.