Necromancy is Not Necessarily Death Magic.

[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.

[Aucald]

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.

For me, what you think of as "refinement" is more the metaphysical aspect of touching on or interfering with the domain of Death in its ordered fashion - in this case, using any of the various magical "fuels" to create an undead entity outside of the natural place for such a thing, specifically Maldraxxus. As an example, Calia Menethil was raised into undeath using the Light to fuel the Necromantic process; but despite the fact that this didn't happen with true Death magic as its fuel, the process still touches on the function and purpose of the realm of Death specifically to hold Calia's soul from entering the Shadowlands and keep it anchored to her now-undead form. In this sense, Necromancy always touches on (or if you prefer, belongs to) the realm of Death - though it might be fueled by a number of sources, the very process of creating undead is deeply involved with and profoundly concerns the functionality of Death as a primordial concept.

That's one aspect of the cosmological map from Chronicle that I think gets overlooked, the idea of the primordial realms not just as sources of power, but as platonic symbols of functionalities that exist within the metacosm. Death and Necromancy aren't just energies, they're systems and practices respectively, and while you may fuel Necromancy with any number of energies, the system you're working within (or interfering with) is that of Death, to which Necromancy as a practice rightfully belongs.

[Ielenia]

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

Death magic is a type of magic.

Types of magic:
• Death
• Nature
• Light
• Elemental
• Arcane
• etc.

Schools of magic:
• Necromancy
• Abjuration
• Conjuration
• Evocation
• Illusion
• Enchantment
• etc.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think it's just a matter of conflicting evidence, but of conflicting meta-accounts of what is reliable evidence.

Not really? I mean, it's a rule of thumb that the most recent information is the most reliable information.

- - - Updated - - -

So, Azerothian necromancy is not the same as other necromancy?

I never said it's not the same.

They don't pull it from one of the cosmic forces?

Without any evidence that they did, Occam's Razor dictates that they didn't.

[The Stormbringer]

Gonna repost this because why not.



They decided that the WoW Cosmology chart is wrong. What am I talking about, you may ask? "Necromantic" and "Undead" are over there with Death.

[Iain]

Death magic is a type of magic.

Types of magic:
• Death
• Nature
• Light
• Elemental
• Arcane
• etc.

Schools of magic:
• Necromancy
• Abjuration
• Conjuration
• Evocation
• Illusion
• Enchantment
• etc.

But Wowpedia categorises Nature, Light, Elemental and Arcane as a school of magic.

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


But not Death. Death is not a school of magic.

Likewise, that cosmic chart puts Death on par with Order, Disorder, Life, Light and Shadow.

Necromantic on the other hands holds the same hierarchical position as Arcane, Nature, Holy, Fel and Void. If Nature is a type of magic, then so is Necromantic a type of magic of the same order.



Now to avoid retreading the same cycle:

You can dismiss the chart, say that it's old information that is now superseded by Sin'Dane's remark. And again, well spotted, because to me that remark and this chart are indeed in conflict. Unless some specifics are added.

But doesn't the way such a big piece of lore gets cast aside by four sentences said by a NPC? And does this retcon only apply to the (rather sizable) 'Necromantic' part or the chart as a whole? What is being replaced by it?

And therein lies the crux of my issue. I like the way the World of Warcraft seemed to flow with necromantic energies seeping from a place beyond which now turns out to be Maldraxxus. All of that made perfect sense to me. It explains all the different atmospheric effects in these zones and it explains why there are roaming undead that don't seem to have been risen or controlled by anyone alongside undead that clearly are under the control of some lich or necromancer.

So when Is say that Blizzard probably didn't understand the ramifications of such a piece of trivia laid out there by a NPC, I'm actually cutting them slack. Way more slack than they've earned by this point.

- - - Updated - - -

They decided that the WoW Cosmology chart is wrong. What am I talking about, you may ask? "Necromantic" and "Undead" are over there with Death.

Indeed they did. And I'm not convinced they realised the implications here. And if they didn't, then that's a clear piece of evidence that WoW's entire lore is on very thin ice as of now. I care about this game, but this does puts a major dent in the amount of confidence I put in Blizzard's capacity to understand their own universe.

[username993720]

I never said it's not the same.

So, what makes the denizens of the Shadowlands not the first ones to use Necromancy?

Without any evidence that they did, Occam's Razor dictates that they didn't.

-_-

I need something better than this.

[Ielenia]

But Wowpedia categorises Nature, Light, Elemental and Arcane as a school of magic.

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

That article is talking about the game mechanic term of 'spell school', not the in-game lore about it. Remember: "physical" such as the damage caused by the Warrior's Rampage ability is also considered by the game mechanics as a "spell school".

As for the cosmic chart? It apparently has become outdated information in lieu of what Sin'dane told us.

[A Chozo]

the WoW Cosmology chart is wrong.

At least follow up the discussion before posting random stuff. We've already determined several pages ago that the cosmology chart and the newest description of Necromancy remain true without retcons. Aucald's posts provided good examples, like:

Calia Menethil was raised into undeath using the Light to fuel the Necromantic process; but despite the fact that this didn't happen with true Death magic as its fuel, the process still touches on the function and purpose of the realm of Death specifically to hold Calia's soul from entering the Shadowlands and keep it anchored to her now-undead form. In this sense, Necromancy always touches on (or if you prefer, belongs to) the realm of Death - though it might be fueled by a number of sources, the very process of creating undead is deeply involved with and profoundly concerns the functionality of Death as a primordial concept.

[Ielenia]

So, what makes the denizens of the Shadowlands not the first ones to use Necromancy?

What the fuck are you talking about? You really got lost in your own arguments.

Just like your previous accusation, I have also never said the denizens of the Shadowlands were not the first to use necromancy.

-_-

I need something better than this.

That's on you, though. You want to make a claim where you have no evidence to support it.

[Phob]

necro-
/ˈnekrō/
combining form
relating to a corpse or death.

-mancy. divination. (fantasy) Variety of magic, especially that controlling or related to a specific element, substance, or theme.


Pretty much does mean Death Magic. but I understand what you're saying.

[Ielenia]

necro-
/ˈnekrō/
combining form
relating to a corpse or death.

-mancy. divination. (fantasy) Variety of magic, especially that controlling or related to a specific element, substance, or theme.


Pretty much does mean Death Magic. but I understand what you're saying.

Necromancy is magic that affects the dead, but it's not death magic.

Like many others, you're taking a real life definition of the word and avoiding the in-lore definitions. We have magic types (such as Death, Nature, Light, Elemental, etc) and spell schools (such as necromancy, divination, illusion, abjuration, etc.)

[WintersLegion]

Necromancy is magic that affects the dead, but it's not death magic.

Like many others, you're taking a real life definition of the word and avoiding the in-lore definitions. We have magic types (such as Death, Nature, Light, Elemental, etc) and spell schools (such as necromancy, divination, illusion, abjuration, etc.)

Yeah to me it's like how we have coal, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear energy and can use any of them to power a fan. The source of the energy is different but the result is the same.

[The Stormbringer]

At least follow up the discussion before posting random stuff. We've already determined several pages ago that the cosmology chart and the newest description of Necromancy remain true without retcons. Aucald's posts provided good examples, like:

/shrug I didn't read all the comments.

Also, Aucald's post is not a guarantee or confirmation of anything. It's a good theory, but we don't know for certain. Hell, I'll even say it's a really good theory that could (and should) be put into place, but we don't know if it will be. That's up to the WoW story devs.

[Firann]

The charts that show Necromantic as tha same level of arcane, light etc. and calls the power source as necromantic, not necromancy.

I believe we can agree that Necromancy (school) is similar to Evocation (school), whereas Necromantic magic is a power source similar to Arcane.

It would have been much better if Necromantic was named to something different to avoid confusion but calling it death magic would name it similar to the domain.

[Super Kami Dende]

Spirit healers resurrect us all the time lorewise. Would they be Necromancers? or is the reanimation of a Person only Death Magic if the Corpse remains a corpse.

[Nitedrifter]

So basically what the Margrave SinDane is saying is that every time we wipe in a raid we are brought back to life by some form of necromancy.